Simplicius Research Environment

Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity, 2024
By: Anna Motta (Ed.), Christopher Kurfess (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1590","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1590,"authors_free":[{"id":2789,"entry_id":1590,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marc-Antoine Gavray","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius"},"abstract":"This paper examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in the Eleatic ontology\r\nand tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. It shows how the commen-\r\ntator competes with his Peripatetic forerunners (Eudemus and Alexander) and makes Zeno\u2019s\r\ngoal congruent with Parmenides. Zeno talks of the same One-Being as Parmenides did, not\r\nof any physical one or being. However, instead of determining it directly, he has to convert\r\nhis readers, Parmenides\u2019 opponents, through dialectical arguments (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). Therefore,\r\nthis article also questions the meaning of being a disciple and rescuing one\u2019s master: Simpli-\r\ncius uses Zeno as a model for every philosopher in this position.\r\nKeywords: One-Being, dialectical arguments, dichotomia, division, Alexander of Aphrodi-\r\nsias, Simplicius, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, Aristoteles, Eudemus of Rhodes [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1590,"section_of":1591,"pages":"171-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1591,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Motta_Kurfess_2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides is widely regarded as the most important and influential of the Presocratic philosophers. Born around 515 BCE in Elea, a Greek colony in southern Italy, he is often considered not only the founder of Eleatic philosophy but also the father of deductive reasoning, the originator of rational theology, and the wellspring of the Western ontological tradition. The impact of Parmenides\u2019 account of Being or \u201cwhat is\u201d (\u1f10\u03cc\u03bd) on subsequent thought has been vast, lasting, and varied. It is also true, as David Sedley has written, that \u201cwith Parmenides, more than with most writers, any translation is an interpretation.\u201d\r\n\r\nThus, both the profundity of Parmenides\u2019 thought and the rich verbal density of his poetry pose challenges to modern scholars\u2014just as they did to his ancient readers. These challenges were felt particularly keenly in later antiquity\u2014a period of focus in the present collection of essays\u2014when doing justice to the authority of the ancients obligated commentators to reconcile a long and complex tradition of sometimes incompatible interpretative commitments. Certain Neoplatonists (in)famously \u201charmonized\u201d points of possible tension by allowing that the Presocratics, though not far from the truth, employed enigmatic and ambiguous language, whereas Plato conveyed the truth in a clearer and more appropriate way. In this manner, the Presocratics, Parmenides among them, could be saved from apparent errors, and their unique conceptions and terminology could be incorporated within a Neoplatonic philosophical framework.\r\n\r\nThe \u201cEleatic school\u201d is commonly understood to include Parmenides, his fellow citizen Zeno, and Melissus of Samos. (Traditionally, Xenophanes of Colophon had also been included, his views about divinity seen as anticipating Parmenides\u2019 account of Being.) Parmenides and his two pupils are distinguished by their concern with methods of proof and for conceiving Being as a unitary substance, which is also immobile, unchangeable, and indivisible. The Eleatics began a series of reflections on the relation between demonstration and reality that eventually developed into Socratic and Platonic dialectic, and Plato\u2019s portrait has played a decisive role in the subsequent reception of Eleatic ideas. Since Plato\u2019s Sophist, Parmenides has been almost as famous for apparent inconsistencies as for the rigid dicta that seemed to land him in them. Moreover, in the Parmenides, which dramatically presents Parmenides and Zeno conversing in Athens with a very young Socrates (Prm. 127a\u2013b), Plato subjects his own characteristic doctrine to critique by his Eleatic predecessors, thereby initiating a tradition of critical examination of Eleatic ontology that would last until Late Antiquity and beyond. Plato\u2019s dialogues exhibit such a profound engagement with Eleatic thought that Eleatic ontology can be regarded as the hidden foundation of Platonic metaphysics.\r\n\r\nOf course, Plato and the Platonic tradition are only part of the story, and the present collection seeks, with no pretense of being exhaustive, to provide a representative survey of the reception of Eleatic ontology during the Hellenistic and late ancient periods. The essays included offer fresh perspectives on crucial points in that reception, reveal points of contact and instances of mutual interaction between competing traditions, and allow readers to reflect on the revolutionary new conceptions that thinkers of these eras developed in the course of the continuing confrontation with the venerable figure of Parmenides and the challenges posed by his thought. This volume is a collaborative effort by an international array of scholars, reflecting a range of outlooks and approaches, and exploring some of the various forms taken by the reception of Parmenides\u2019 ontology. Some of the essays were invited by the editors; others were selected by blind review from submissions made in response to a call for papers.\r\n\r\nThe arrangement of essays is roughly chronological. In chapter 1, \u201cBeing at Play: Naming and Non-Naming in the Anonymous De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia,\u201d Christopher Kurfess considers the way that names are handled in a curious document transmitted as part of the Aristotelian corpus, noting its continuities with earlier instances of the reception of Eleatic thought. In chapter 2, \u201cHealthy, Immutable, and Beautiful: Eleatic Pantheism and Epicurean Theology,\u201d Enrico Piergiacomi reconstructs an Epicurean view of, and response to, a pantheistic Parmenidean theology. In chapter 3, \u201cDualism and Platonism: Plutarch\u2019s Parmenides,\u201d Carlo Delle Donne introduces us to Plutarch\u2019s Platonism, reading Parmenides as a forerunner of Plato in both ontology and the account of the sensible world. In chapter 4, \u201cClement of Alexandria and the Eleatization of Xenophanes,\u201d William H.F. Altman focuses on Clement of Alexandria\u2019s role in preserving several key theological fragments of Xenophanes and invites us to reconsider modern scholars\u2019 dismissal of both Xenophanes\u2019 status as an Eleatic and Clement\u2019s claim of Greek philosophy\u2019s debt to Hebrew Scripture. In chapter 5, \u201cParmenides\u2019 Philosophy through Plato\u2019s Parmenides in Origen of Alexandria,\u201d Ilaria L.E. Ramelli explores the reception of Parmenides\u2019 thought in Origen, one of the main exponents of patristic philosophy. In chapter 6, \u201cPlatonism and Eleaticism,\u201d Lloyd P. Gerson provides an analysis of the appropriation of Eleatic philosophy by Plato and the Platonists, with a particular focus on Plotinus. In chapter 7, \u201cAugustine and Eleatic Ontology,\u201d Giovanni Catapano illustrates the general aspects and the essential contents of Augustinian ontology as they relate to distinctive theses of the Eleatics. In chapter 8, \u201cProclus and the Overcoming of Eleaticism without Parricide,\u201d Anna Motta investigates the debt that Plato incurred with the Eleatics according to Proclus. In chapter 9, \u201cWhy Rescue Parmenides? On Zeno\u2019s Ontology in Simplicius,\u201d Marc-Antoine Gavray examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. [introduction p. 7-9]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1591,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Federico II University Press","series":"Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Scuola delle Scienze Umane e Sociali Quaderni","volume":"","edition_no":"29","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}

Title	Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2024
Publication Place	Napoli
Publisher	Federico II University Press
Series	Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Scuola delle Scienze Umane e Sociali Quaderni
Edition No.	29
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Anna Motta , Christopher Kurfess
Translator(s)

Parmenides is widely regarded as the most important and influential of the Presocratic philosophers. Born around 515 BCE in Elea, a Greek colony in southern Italy, he is often considered not only the founder of Eleatic philosophy but also the father of deductive reasoning, the originator of rational theology, and the wellspring of the Western ontological tradition. The impact of Parmenides’ account of Being or “what is” (ἐόν) on subsequent thought has been vast, lasting, and varied. It is also true, as David Sedley has written, that “with Parmenides, more than with most writers, any translation is an interpretation.” Thus, both the profundity of Parmenides’ thought and the rich verbal density of his poetry pose challenges to modern scholars—just as they did to his ancient readers. These challenges were felt particularly keenly in later antiquity—a period of focus in the present collection of essays—when doing justice to the authority of the ancients obligated commentators to reconcile a long and complex tradition of sometimes incompatible interpretative commitments. Certain Neoplatonists (in)famously “harmonized” points of possible tension by allowing that the Presocratics, though not far from the truth, employed enigmatic and ambiguous language, whereas Plato conveyed the truth in a clearer and more appropriate way. In this manner, the Presocratics, Parmenides among them, could be saved from apparent errors, and their unique conceptions and terminology could be incorporated within a Neoplatonic philosophical framework. The “Eleatic school” is commonly understood to include Parmenides, his fellow citizen Zeno, and Melissus of Samos. (Traditionally, Xenophanes of Colophon had also been included, his views about divinity seen as anticipating Parmenides’ account of Being.) Parmenides and his two pupils are distinguished by their concern with methods of proof and for conceiving Being as a unitary substance, which is also immobile, unchangeable, and indivisible. The Eleatics began a series of reflections on the relation between demonstration and reality that eventually developed into Socratic and Platonic dialectic, and Plato’s portrait has played a decisive role in the subsequent reception of Eleatic ideas. Since Plato’s Sophist, Parmenides has been almost as famous for apparent inconsistencies as for the rigid dicta that seemed to land him in them. Moreover, in the Parmenides, which dramatically presents Parmenides and Zeno conversing in Athens with a very young Socrates (Prm. 127a–b), Plato subjects his own characteristic doctrine to critique by his Eleatic predecessors, thereby initiating a tradition of critical examination of Eleatic ontology that would last until Late Antiquity and beyond. Plato’s dialogues exhibit such a profound engagement with Eleatic thought that Eleatic ontology can be regarded as the hidden foundation of Platonic metaphysics. Of course, Plato and the Platonic tradition are only part of the story, and the present collection seeks, with no pretense of being exhaustive, to provide a representative survey of the reception of Eleatic ontology during the Hellenistic and late ancient periods. The essays included offer fresh perspectives on crucial points in that reception, reveal points of contact and instances of mutual interaction between competing traditions, and allow readers to reflect on the revolutionary new conceptions that thinkers of these eras developed in the course of the continuing confrontation with the venerable figure of Parmenides and the challenges posed by his thought. This volume is a collaborative effort by an international array of scholars, reflecting a range of outlooks and approaches, and exploring some of the various forms taken by the reception of Parmenides’ ontology. Some of the essays were invited by the editors; others were selected by blind review from submissions made in response to a call for papers. The arrangement of essays is roughly chronological. In chapter 1, “Being at Play: Naming and Non-Naming in the Anonymous De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia,” Christopher Kurfess considers the way that names are handled in a curious document transmitted as part of the Aristotelian corpus, noting its continuities with earlier instances of the reception of Eleatic thought. In chapter 2, “Healthy, Immutable, and Beautiful: Eleatic Pantheism and Epicurean Theology,” Enrico Piergiacomi reconstructs an Epicurean view of, and response to, a pantheistic Parmenidean theology. In chapter 3, “Dualism and Platonism: Plutarch’s Parmenides,” Carlo Delle Donne introduces us to Plutarch’s Platonism, reading Parmenides as a forerunner of Plato in both ontology and the account of the sensible world. In chapter 4, “Clement of Alexandria and the Eleatization of Xenophanes,” William H.F. Altman focuses on Clement of Alexandria’s role in preserving several key theological fragments of Xenophanes and invites us to reconsider modern scholars’ dismissal of both Xenophanes’ status as an Eleatic and Clement’s claim of Greek philosophy’s debt to Hebrew Scripture. In chapter 5, “Parmenides’ Philosophy through Plato’s Parmenides in Origen of Alexandria,” Ilaria L.E. Ramelli explores the reception of Parmenides’ thought in Origen, one of the main exponents of patristic philosophy. In chapter 6, “Platonism and Eleaticism,” Lloyd P. Gerson provides an analysis of the appropriation of Eleatic philosophy by Plato and the Platonists, with a particular focus on Plotinus. In chapter 7, “Augustine and Eleatic Ontology,” Giovanni Catapano illustrates the general aspects and the essential contents of Augustinian ontology as they relate to distinctive theses of the Eleatics. In chapter 8, “Proclus and the Overcoming of Eleaticism without Parricide,” Anna Motta investigates the debt that Plato incurred with the Eleatics according to Proclus. In chapter 9, “Why Rescue Parmenides? On Zeno’s Ontology in Simplicius,” Marc-Antoine Gavray examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. [introduction p. 7-9]

Online Resources

Platon und die Zeit, 2024
By: Klaus Corcilius (Ed.), Irmgard Männlein (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1591","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1591,"authors_free":[{"id":2790,"entry_id":1591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Anna Motta","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Motta","norm_person":null},{"id":2791,"entry_id":1591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Christopher Kurfess","free_first_name":"Christopher ","free_last_name":"Kurfess","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Parmenides is widely regarded as the most important and influential of the Presocratic philosophers. Born around 515 BCE in Elea, a Greek colony in southern Italy, he is often considered not only the founder of Eleatic philosophy but also the father of deductive reasoning, the originator of rational theology, and the wellspring of the Western ontological tradition. The impact of Parmenides\u2019 account of Being or \u201cwhat is\u201d (\u1f10\u03cc\u03bd) on subsequent thought has been vast, lasting, and varied. It is also true, as David Sedley has written, that \u201cwith Parmenides, more than with most writers, any translation is an interpretation.\u201d\r\n\r\nThus, both the profundity of Parmenides\u2019 thought and the rich verbal density of his poetry pose challenges to modern scholars\u2014just as they did to his ancient readers. These challenges were felt particularly keenly in later antiquity\u2014a period of focus in the present collection of essays\u2014when doing justice to the authority of the ancients obligated commentators to reconcile a long and complex tradition of sometimes incompatible interpretative commitments. Certain Neoplatonists (in)famously \u201charmonized\u201d points of possible tension by allowing that the Presocratics, though not far from the truth, employed enigmatic and ambiguous language, whereas Plato conveyed the truth in a clearer and more appropriate way. In this manner, the Presocratics, Parmenides among them, could be saved from apparent errors, and their unique conceptions and terminology could be incorporated within a Neoplatonic philosophical framework.\r\n\r\nThe \u201cEleatic school\u201d is commonly understood to include Parmenides, his fellow citizen Zeno, and Melissus of Samos. (Traditionally, Xenophanes of Colophon had also been included, his views about divinity seen as anticipating Parmenides\u2019 account of Being.) Parmenides and his two pupils are distinguished by their concern with methods of proof and for conceiving Being as a unitary substance, which is also immobile, unchangeable, and indivisible. The Eleatics began a series of reflections on the relation between demonstration and reality that eventually developed into Socratic and Platonic dialectic, and Plato\u2019s portrait has played a decisive role in the subsequent reception of Eleatic ideas. Since Plato\u2019s Sophist, Parmenides has been almost as famous for apparent inconsistencies as for the rigid dicta that seemed to land him in them. Moreover, in the Parmenides, which dramatically presents Parmenides and Zeno conversing in Athens with a very young Socrates (Prm. 127a\u2013b), Plato subjects his own characteristic doctrine to critique by his Eleatic predecessors, thereby initiating a tradition of critical examination of Eleatic ontology that would last until Late Antiquity and beyond. Plato\u2019s dialogues exhibit such a profound engagement with Eleatic thought that Eleatic ontology can be regarded as the hidden foundation of Platonic metaphysics.\r\n\r\nOf course, Plato and the Platonic tradition are only part of the story, and the present collection seeks, with no pretense of being exhaustive, to provide a representative survey of the reception of Eleatic ontology during the Hellenistic and late ancient periods. The essays included offer fresh perspectives on crucial points in that reception, reveal points of contact and instances of mutual interaction between competing traditions, and allow readers to reflect on the revolutionary new conceptions that thinkers of these eras developed in the course of the continuing confrontation with the venerable figure of Parmenides and the challenges posed by his thought. This volume is a collaborative effort by an international array of scholars, reflecting a range of outlooks and approaches, and exploring some of the various forms taken by the reception of Parmenides\u2019 ontology. Some of the essays were invited by the editors; others were selected by blind review from submissions made in response to a call for papers.\r\n\r\nThe arrangement of essays is roughly chronological. In chapter 1, \u201cBeing at Play: Naming and Non-Naming in the Anonymous De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia,\u201d Christopher Kurfess considers the way that names are handled in a curious document transmitted as part of the Aristotelian corpus, noting its continuities with earlier instances of the reception of Eleatic thought. In chapter 2, \u201cHealthy, Immutable, and Beautiful: Eleatic Pantheism and Epicurean Theology,\u201d Enrico Piergiacomi reconstructs an Epicurean view of, and response to, a pantheistic Parmenidean theology. In chapter 3, \u201cDualism and Platonism: Plutarch\u2019s Parmenides,\u201d Carlo Delle Donne introduces us to Plutarch\u2019s Platonism, reading Parmenides as a forerunner of Plato in both ontology and the account of the sensible world. In chapter 4, \u201cClement of Alexandria and the Eleatization of Xenophanes,\u201d William H.F. Altman focuses on Clement of Alexandria\u2019s role in preserving several key theological fragments of Xenophanes and invites us to reconsider modern scholars\u2019 dismissal of both Xenophanes\u2019 status as an Eleatic and Clement\u2019s claim of Greek philosophy\u2019s debt to Hebrew Scripture. In chapter 5, \u201cParmenides\u2019 Philosophy through Plato\u2019s Parmenides in Origen of Alexandria,\u201d Ilaria L.E. Ramelli explores the reception of Parmenides\u2019 thought in Origen, one of the main exponents of patristic philosophy. In chapter 6, \u201cPlatonism and Eleaticism,\u201d Lloyd P. Gerson provides an analysis of the appropriation of Eleatic philosophy by Plato and the Platonists, with a particular focus on Plotinus. In chapter 7, \u201cAugustine and Eleatic Ontology,\u201d Giovanni Catapano illustrates the general aspects and the essential contents of Augustinian ontology as they relate to distinctive theses of the Eleatics. In chapter 8, \u201cProclus and the Overcoming of Eleaticism without Parricide,\u201d Anna Motta investigates the debt that Plato incurred with the Eleatics according to Proclus. In chapter 9, \u201cWhy Rescue Parmenides? On Zeno\u2019s Ontology in Simplicius,\u201d Marc-Antoine Gavray examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. [introduction p. 7-9]","btype":4,"date":"2024","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1591,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Federico II University Press","series":"Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Scuola delle Scienze Umane e Sociali Quaderni","volume":"","edition_no":"29","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2024]}

Title	Platon und die Zeit
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2024
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Series	Tübinger Platon Tage
Volume	3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Klaus Corcilius , Irmgard Männlein
Translator(s)

Der Band "Platon und die Zeit" umfasst Beiträge zu einem zentralen und großen Thema bei Platon: Vor allem im Dialog 'Timaios', aber auch in weiteren philosophischen Dialogen Platons geht es um die Frage der Natur und des Wesens von Zeit und darum, wie und ob sie entstanden ist. So werden in diesem Band ganz unterschiedliche philosophische und kosmologische Ansätze ebenso wie ontologische und ethische Themen zu Platons Zeit-Konzept in den Fokus genommen. Behandelt werden überdies viele Stufen der philosophischen Rezeption und der (kritischen) Auseinandersetzung mit Platons Vorstellungen über 'Zeit', die etwa über Philon von Alexandria, Plutarch, Numenios, Origenes, Plotin und Augustinus bis hin zu späteren Neuplatonikern wie Proklos in die Spätantike reichen. [official abstract]

Online Resources

Time and the intellect. Philoponus’ polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius’ reply., 2024
By: Jan Opsomer

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1603","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1603,"authors_free":[{"id":2807,"entry_id":1603,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Klaus Corcilius","free_first_name":"Klaus","free_last_name":"Corcilius","norm_person":null},{"id":2808,"entry_id":1603,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irmgard M\u00e4nnlein","free_first_name":"Irmgard","free_last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Platon und die Zeit","main_title":{"title":"Platon und die Zeit"},"abstract":"Der Band \"Platon und die Zeit\" umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen und gro\u00dfen Thema bei Platon: Vor allem im Dialog 'Timaios', aber auch in weiteren philosophischen Dialogen Platons geht es um die Frage der Natur und des Wesens von Zeit und darum, wie und ob sie entstanden ist. So werden in diesem Band ganz unterschiedliche philosophische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische und ethische Themen zu Platons Zeit-Konzept in den Fokus genommen. Behandelt werden \u00fcberdies viele Stufen der philosophischen Rezeption und der (kritischen) Auseinandersetzung mit Platons Vorstellungen \u00fcber 'Zeit', die etwa \u00fcber Philon von Alexandria, Plutarch, Numenios, Origenes, Plotin und Augustinus bis hin zu sp\u00e4teren Neuplatonikern wie Proklos in die Sp\u00e4tantike reichen. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2024","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1603,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"T\u00fcbinger Platon Tage ","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2024]}

Title	Time and the intellect. Philoponus’ polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius’ reply.
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2024
Published in	Platon und die Zeit
Pages	181-201
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Jan Opsomer
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The Contra Aristotelem and Contra Proclum agree to a large extent regarding the relation between intellect and time: human, angelic, and other non-divine intellects grasp their objects instantaneously, yet think transitionally. Divine intellects, on the contrary, while grasping their objects instantaneously, do not think transitionally. All intellects are unrelated to time because only agents that are engaged in physical change act in time. Despite this "official" view, the Contra Aristotelem contains passages suggesting that God also thinks sequentially and hence is able to think time as an A-series. This would still not mean, according to Philoponus, that God thinks in time because the sequence in question is not physical. Simplicius does not accept this excuse and does not want to restrict the concept of time in this manner. The sequence in God's thought fits well with Philoponus’ durational or quasi-temporal conception of eternity. At any rate, whatever one is prepared to call the sequential thinking in which God apparently engages, it is hard to deny that it is in some sense transitional. In order to remain consistent, therefore, Philoponus would also need to concede that the durational eternity in which God lives is not devoid of every type of change. He is not likely to be prepared to make that concession, given his repeated denials of divine transitional thought. The least one can say is that, in the Contra Aristotelem, there is a tension in Philoponus’ various pronouncements on the divine intellect. Presumably, Philoponus would have restricted this type of sequential or "transitional" divine thought to cases where God is thinking about events that are situated in time (more precisely, in limited time spans, as sempiternal, unchanging objects of thought would not pose a problem). If this is the case, God would still intelligize all eternal, intelligible realities at once. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

The use of Stoic references in Simplicius’ discussion of quality, 2023
By: Hauer, Mareike, Ulacco, Angela (Ed.), Joosse, Albert (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1604,"authors_free":[{"id":2809,"entry_id":1604,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jan Opsomer","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply.","main_title":{"title":"Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply."},"abstract":"The Contra Aristotelem and Contra Proclum agree to a large extent regarding the relation between intellect and time: human, angelic, and other non-divine intellects grasp their objects instantaneously, yet think transitionally. Divine intellects, on the contrary, while grasping their objects instantaneously, do not think transitionally. All intellects are unrelated to time because only agents that are engaged in physical change act in time.\r\n\r\nDespite this \"official\" view, the Contra Aristotelem contains passages suggesting that God also thinks sequentially and hence is able to think time as an A-series. This would still not mean, according to Philoponus, that God thinks in time because the sequence in question is not physical. Simplicius does not accept this excuse and does not want to restrict the concept of time in this manner.\r\n\r\nThe sequence in God's thought fits well with Philoponus\u2019 durational or quasi-temporal conception of eternity. At any rate, whatever one is prepared to call the sequential thinking in which God apparently engages, it is hard to deny that it is in some sense transitional. In order to remain consistent, therefore, Philoponus would also need to concede that the durational eternity in which God lives is not devoid of every type of change. He is not likely to be prepared to make that concession, given his repeated denials of divine transitional thought.\r\n\r\nThe least one can say is that, in the Contra Aristotelem, there is a tension in Philoponus\u2019 various pronouncements on the divine intellect. Presumably, Philoponus would have restricted this type of sequential or \"transitional\" divine thought to cases where God is thinking about events that are situated in time (more precisely, in limited time spans, as sempiternal, unchanging objects of thought would not pose a problem). If this is the case, God would still intelligize all eternal, intelligible realities at once. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1604,"section_of":1603,"pages":"181-201","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1603,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platon und die Zeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Corcilius_M\u00e4nnlein_2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Der Band \"Platon und die Zeit\" umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen und gro\u00dfen Thema bei Platon: Vor allem im Dialog 'Timaios', aber auch in weiteren philosophischen Dialogen Platons geht es um die Frage der Natur und des Wesens von Zeit und darum, wie und ob sie entstanden ist. So werden in diesem Band ganz unterschiedliche philosophische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische und ethische Themen zu Platons Zeit-Konzept in den Fokus genommen. Behandelt werden \u00fcberdies viele Stufen der philosophischen Rezeption und der (kritischen) Auseinandersetzung mit Platons Vorstellungen \u00fcber 'Zeit', die etwa \u00fcber Philon von Alexandria, Plutarch, Numenios, Origenes, Plotin und Augustinus bis hin zu sp\u00e4teren Neuplatonikern wie Proklos in die Sp\u00e4tantike reichen. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1603,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"T\u00fcbinger Platon Tage ","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}

Title	The use of Stoic references in Simplicius’ discussion of quality
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2023
Published in	Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)	Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert
Translator(s)

The chapter deals with Simplicius’ references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle’s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius’ account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sLNvZJzhvBuIdic

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1146","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1146,"authors_free":[{"id":1719,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1720,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":371,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":{"id":371,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Ulacco","full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156610575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1721,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":372,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joosse, Albert","free_first_name":"Albert","free_last_name":"Joosse","norm_person":{"id":372,"first_name":"Albert","last_name":"Joosse","full_name":"Joosse, Albert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality","main_title":{"title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality"},"abstract":"The chapter deals with Simplicius\u2019 references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle\u2019s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius\u2019 account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius\u2019 criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sLNvZJzhvBuIdic","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":371,"full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":372,"full_name":"Joosse, Albert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1146,"section_of":379,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":379,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ulacco2023","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE.\r\n\r\nBy studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mQL8DFZ9PPylGiK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":379,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}

Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy , 2023
By: Ulacco, Angela (Ed.), Joosse, Albert (Ed.)

Title	Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2023
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert
Translator(s)

Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE. By studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mQL8DFZ9PPylGiK

{"_index":"sire","_id":"379","_score":null,"_source":{"id":379,"authors_free":[{"id":494,"entry_id":379,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":371,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":{"id":371,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Ulacco","full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156610575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":495,"entry_id":379,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":372,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joosse, Albert","free_first_name":"Albert","free_last_name":"Joosse","norm_person":{"id":372,"first_name":"Albert","last_name":"Joosse","full_name":"Joosse, Albert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy ","main_title":{"title":"Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy "},"abstract":"Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE.\r\n\r\nBy studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2023","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mQL8DFZ9PPylGiK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":371,"full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":372,"full_name":"Joosse, Albert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":379,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2023]}

Commentaire à la ›Physique‹ d’Aristote: Digressions sur le lieu et sur le temps, 2023
By: Golitsis, Pantelis (Ed.), Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.)

Title	Commentaire à la ›Physique‹ d’Aristote: Digressions sur le lieu et sur le temps
Type	Monograph
Language	undefined
Date	2023
Publisher	De Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe
Translator(s)

Neuedition der sogenannten Corollaria de loco et de tempore aus dem Kommentar des Simplikios zum Buch IV der aristotelischen Physik. Die vorliegende Edition (mitsamt philosophischer und philologischer Einleitung und Annotationen) basiert auf der vollständigen Kollation aller unabhängigen Handschriften des Kommentars (u. a. des Kodex Mosquensis Muz. 3649, der dem Editor der modernen Referenzausgabe des Kommentars Hermann Diels unbekannt war). [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1568","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1568,"authors_free":[{"id":2737,"entry_id":1568,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":null},{"id":2738,"entry_id":1568,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Commentaire \u00e0 la \u203aPhysique\u2039 d\u2019Aristote: Digressions sur le lieu et sur le temps","main_title":{"title":"Commentaire \u00e0 la \u203aPhysique\u2039 d\u2019Aristote: Digressions sur le lieu et sur le temps"},"abstract":"Neuedition der sogenannten Corollaria de loco et de tempore aus dem Kommentar des Simplikios zum Buch IV der aristotelischen Physik. Die vorliegende Edition (mitsamt philosophischer und philologischer Einleitung und Annotationen) basiert auf der vollst\u00e4ndigen Kollation aller unabh\u00e4ngigen Handschriften des Kommentars (u. a. des Kodex Mosquensis Muz. 3649, der dem Editor der modernen Referenzausgabe des Kommentars Hermann Diels unbekannt war). [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2023","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1568,"pubplace":"","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2023]}

Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception, 2023
By: Muzala, Melina (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2023
Publication Place	Berlin/Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Topics in Ancient Philosophy/ Themen der antiken Philosophie
Volume	10
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Muzala, Melina
Translator(s)

The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1577","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1577,"authors_free":[{"id":2756,"entry_id":1577,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception"},"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","btype":4,"date":"2023","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2023]}

Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic, 2023
By: Baltussen, Han, Muzala, Melina (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2023
Published in	Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception
Pages	441-456
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Muzala, Melina
Translator(s)

The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialectic which has been under-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the late Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480–c. 540 CE), in particular his Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries. I am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as sketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous work I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle’s methodology, emphasizing the important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle’s claims for a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1578","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1578,"authors_free":[{"id":2757,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2758,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"},"abstract":"The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle\u2019s dialectic which has been\r\nunder-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the\r\nlate Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480\u2013c. 540 CE), in particular\r\nhis Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries.\r\nI am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as\r\nsketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous\r\nwork I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle\u2019s methodology, emphasizing\r\nthe important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle\u2019s claims\r\nfor a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1578,"section_of":1577,"pages":"441-456","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}

Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary, 2023
By: Griffin, Michael J., Muzala, Melina (Ed.)

Title	Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2023
Published in	Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception
Pages	371-396
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)	Muzala, Melina
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nhzKYr8q8E565qL

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1579","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1579,"authors_free":[{"id":2759,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","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}},{"id":2760,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nhzKYr8q8E565qL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1579,"section_of":1577,"pages":"371-396","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}

Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato’s Conception of Not-Being, 2023
By: Roberto Granieri

Title	Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato’s Conception of Not-Being
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2023
Journal	Méthexis
Volume	35
Issue	1
Pages	185-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Roberto Granieri
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In explicating a passage from Physics A 3, Simplicius reports a criticism by Alexander of Aphrodisias against Plato’s conception of not-being in the Sophist. Alexander deems this conception contradictory, because it posits that unqualified not-being is. Simplicius defends Plato and gives a diagnosis of what he regards as Alexander’s interpretative mistake in raising his objection. I unpack this debate and bring out ways in which it sheds light on important aspects of Plato’s project in the Sophist and of Simplicius’ own philosophical background, notably in Damascius’ De principiis. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kxUtLJkrkZD05av

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1588","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1588,"authors_free":[{"id":2787,"entry_id":1588,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Roberto Granieri","free_first_name":"Roberto","free_last_name":"Granieri","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato\u2019s Conception of Not-Being","main_title":{"title":"Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato\u2019s Conception of Not-Being"},"abstract":"In explicating a passage from Physics A 3, Simplicius reports a criticism by Alexander of Aphrodisias against Plato\u2019s conception of not-being in the Sophist. Alexander deems this conception contradictory, because it posits that unqualified not-being is. Simplicius defends Plato and gives a diagnosis of what he regards as Alexander\u2019s interpretative mistake in raising his objection. I unpack this debate and bring out ways in which it sheds light on important aspects of Plato\u2019s project in the Sophist and of Simplicius\u2019 own philosophical background, notably in Damascius\u2019 De principiis. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kxUtLJkrkZD05av","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1588,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"185-200"}},"sort":[2023]}

De Simplicius À Ḥunayn: La Transmission d'Une Doxographie Dans Les Résumés au Traité Sur Les Éléments de Galien, 2023
By: Mathilde Brémond

Title	De Simplicius À Ḥunayn: La Transmission d'Une Doxographie Dans Les Résumés au Traité Sur Les Éléments de Galien
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2023
Journal	Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume	33
Issue	1
Pages	1-23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mathilde Brémond
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper examines two doxographies present in Ḥunayn’s summaries to Galen’s treatise On the Elements. We track the origin of these doxographies back, from Greek scolia to Galen’s treatise to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, which we show to be the ultimate source. We also point out that Simplicius’ Commentary inspired an interpretation of Parmenides and Melissus that we find in Ḥunayn’s texts. This allows us to see remnants of Simplicius’ Commentary in the Arabic world and to shed some light on the production of these summaries to Galen’s work called Summaria Alexandrinorum. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zlN6Bivl0O6bw9q

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1594","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1594,"authors_free":[{"id":2794,"entry_id":1594,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mathilde Br\u00e9mond","free_first_name":"Mathilde","free_last_name":"Br\u00e9mond","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"De Simplicius \u00c0 \u1e24unayn: La Transmission d'Une Doxographie Dans Les R\u00e9sum\u00e9s au Trait\u00e9 Sur Les \u00c9l\u00e9ments de Galien","main_title":{"title":"De Simplicius \u00c0 \u1e24unayn: La Transmission d'Une Doxographie Dans Les R\u00e9sum\u00e9s au Trait\u00e9 Sur Les \u00c9l\u00e9ments de Galien"},"abstract":"This paper examines two doxographies present in \u1e24unayn\u2019s summaries to Galen\u2019s treatise On the Elements. We track the origin of these doxographies back, from Greek scolia to Galen\u2019s treatise to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, which we show to be the ultimate source. We also point out that Simplicius\u2019 Commentary inspired an interpretation of Parmenides and Melissus that we find in \u1e24unayn\u2019s texts. This allows us to see remnants of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary in the Arabic world and to shed some light on the production of these summaries to Galen\u2019s work called Summaria Alexandrinorum. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zlN6Bivl0O6bw9q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1594,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"33","issue":"1","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":[2023]}

Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio, 2023
By: Giuseppe Nastasi

Title	Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2023
Journal	Elenchos: Rivista di Studi Sul Pensiero Antico
Volume	44
Issue	2
Pages	333-365
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Giuseppe Nastasi
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories contains the most extended testimony about the Stoic conception of acting (ποιεῖν) and undergoing (πάσχειν). Simplicius ascribed to the Stoics the idea that acting and undergoing are to be reduced to the movement. To this opinion Simplicius opposed the Aristotelian view according to which acting and undergoing are two different categories. In this paper I intend to outline the original Stoic position comparing the reportage of Simplicius with other Stoic sources. Later, I will deal with Boethus’ defense of the distinction between the categories of acting and undergoing. I will argue that Boethus directly reacted against the Stoic opinion reformulating it in Aristotelian language. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8cin65Qpb0Uymcj

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1599","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1599,"authors_free":[{"id":2799,"entry_id":1599,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Giuseppe Nastasi","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":" Nastasi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories contains the most extended testimony about the Stoic conception of acting (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) and undergoing (\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd). Simplicius ascribed to the Stoics the idea that acting and undergoing are to be reduced to the movement. To this opinion Simplicius opposed the Aristotelian view according to which acting and undergoing are two different categories. In this paper I intend to outline the original Stoic position comparing the reportage of Simplicius with other Stoic sources. Later, I will deal with Boethus\u2019 defense of the distinction between the categories of acting and undergoing. I will argue that Boethus directly reacted against the Stoic opinion reformulating it in Aristotelian language. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8cin65Qpb0Uymcj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1599,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos: Rivista di Studi Sul Pensiero Antico ","volume":"44","issue":"2","pages":"333-365"}},"sort":[2023]}

Dealing with Disagreement The Construction of Traditions in Later Ancient Philosophy, 2023
By: Ulacco, Angela, Ulacco, Angela (Ed.), Joosse, Albert (Ed.)

Title	Dealing with Disagreement The Construction of Traditions in Later Ancient Philosophy
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2023
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Series	Monothéismes et Philosophie, vol. 33
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ulacco, Angela
Editor(s)	Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AMFfDilUSW4mZpD

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1543","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1543,"authors_free":[{"id":2694,"entry_id":1543,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":371,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":{"id":371,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Ulacco","full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156610575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2695,"entry_id":1543,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":371,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":{"id":371,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Ulacco","full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156610575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2696,"entry_id":1543,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":372,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joosse, Albert","free_first_name":"Albert","free_last_name":"Joosse","norm_person":{"id":372,"first_name":"Albert","last_name":"Joosse","full_name":"Joosse, Albert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dealing with Disagreement The Construction of Traditions in Later Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Dealing with Disagreement The Construction of Traditions in Later Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE.\r\n\r\nBy studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AMFfDilUSW4mZpD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":371,"full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":371,"full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":372,"full_name":"Joosse, Albert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1543,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Monoth\u00e9ismes et Philosophie, vol. 33 ","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2023]}

“Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?, 2022
By: Baltussen, Han, Lammer, Andreas (Ed.), Jas, Mareike (Ed.)

Title	“Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2022
Published in	Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World
Pages	151-174
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike
Translator(s)

[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

Neoplatonic Political Subjectivity? Prohairesis, to eph’ hēmīn, and Self-constitution in Simplicius’ Commentary on Epictetus’ Encheiridion , 2022
By: Tim Riggs

Title	Neoplatonic Political Subjectivity? Prohairesis, to eph’ hēmīn, and Self-constitution in Simplicius’ Commentary on Epictetus’ Encheiridion
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2022
Journal	International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	18
Issue	2
Pages	152-177
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tim Riggs
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

I argue that in his commentary on Epictetus’ Encheiridion, Simplicius derives a method by which his students can enter into the process of self-constitution, which is only achieved through completion of the study of Plato’s dialogues. The result of following the method is the attainment of a perspective consonant with the level of political virtue, which I call ‘political subjectivity’. This is a speculative interpretation of the effect the student would. experience in following the method, accomplished through analyses of Simplicius’ interpretation of Epictetus’ concept of to eph’ hēmīn and the related prohairesis. I complement this with an analysis of the metaphysical foundation Simplicius gives the method in light of Charles Taylor’s notion of ‘strong evaluation’. In this way, I show how Simplicius adapts these concepts to his Neoplatonic psychology and virtue theory to make the method serve as preparation for the development of virtue prior to study of Plato. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1aSuGa63BJmxeQ0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1595","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1595,"authors_free":[{"id":2795,"entry_id":1595,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tim Riggs","free_first_name":"Tim","free_last_name":"Riggs","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Political Subjectivity? Prohairesis, to eph\u2019 h\u0113m\u012bn, and Self-constitution in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Epictetus\u2019 Encheiridion ","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Political Subjectivity? Prohairesis, to eph\u2019 h\u0113m\u012bn, and Self-constitution in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Epictetus\u2019 Encheiridion "},"abstract":"I argue that in his commentary on Epictetus\u2019 Encheiridion, Simplicius derives a method by which his students can enter into the process of self-constitution, which is only achieved through completion of the study of Plato\u2019s dialogues. The result of following the method is the attainment of a perspective consonant with the level of political virtue, which I call \u2018political subjectivity\u2019. This is a speculative interpretation of the effect the student would. experience in following the method, accomplished through analyses of Simplicius\u2019 interpretation of Epictetus\u2019 concept of to eph\u2019 h\u0113m\u012bn and the related prohairesis. I complement this with an analysis of the metaphysical foundation Simplicius gives the method in light of Charles Taylor\u2019s notion of \u2018strong evaluation\u2019. In this way, I show how Simplicius adapts these concepts to his Neoplatonic psychology and virtue theory to make the method serve as preparation for the development of virtue prior to study of Plato. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1aSuGa63BJmxeQ0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1595,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"International Journal of the Platonic Tradition ","volume":"18","issue":"2","pages":"152-177"}},"sort":[2022]}

Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 2022
By: Helmig, Christoph, Lammer, Andreas (Ed.), Jas, Mareike (Ed.)

Title	Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2022
Published in	Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World
Pages	175-206
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)	Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike
Translator(s)

The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides’ poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle. Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical. In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve. Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica. The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides. [conclusion p. 200-202]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPlato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides\u2019 poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.\r\n\r\nAristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides\u2019 account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle\u2019s account in Physics I.2\u20133 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides\u2019 doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.\r\n\r\nIn several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symph\u00f4nia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides\u2019 poem and Plato\u2019s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.\r\n\r\nThe context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in the context of Aristotle\u2019s criticism and against the background of Plato\u2019s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato\u2019s version of Parmenides.\r\n[conclusion p. 200-202]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World, 2022
By: Lammer, Andreas (Ed.), Jas, Mareike (Ed.)

Title	Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia Antiqua
Volume	160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike
Translator(s)

Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2–6), biology (Hist. anim. III.2–3; De respir. 1–9), psychology (De an. I.2–4), metaphysics (Met. Α.1–10), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10–12). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to “go over or rehearse the puzzles” (diaporêsai). Ever since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle’s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels’ work emphasized Theophrastus’ role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels’ two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought. In this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle’s habit of examining such “received opinions” and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480–ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments. By defining “received opinions” in the sense of “accepted” as well as “transmitted,” we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, “received opinions” relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with “historical” depth. This three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels’ label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term “endoxography” in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels’ notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope. In my study of Theophrastus’ work, I came up with the phrase “critical endoxography” a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus’ De sensibus as a way of specifying how these “well-known views” (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle’s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators. Diels’ modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1521,"authors_free":[{"id":2639,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2640,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","main_title":{"title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"},"abstract":"Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2\u20136), biology (Hist. anim. III.2\u20133; De respir. 1\u20139), psychology (De an. I.2\u20134), metaphysics (Met. \u0391.1\u201310), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10\u201312). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to \u201cgo over or rehearse the puzzles\u201d (diapor\u00easai).\r\n\r\nEver since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle\u2019s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels\u2019 work emphasized Theophrastus\u2019 role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels\u2019 two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle\u2019s habit of examining such \u201creceived opinions\u201d and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480\u2013ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments.\r\n\r\nBy defining \u201creceived opinions\u201d in the sense of \u201caccepted\u201d as well as \u201ctransmitted,\u201d we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, \u201creceived opinions\u201d relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with \u201chistorical\u201d depth.\r\n\r\nThis three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels\u2019 label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term \u201cendoxography\u201d in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels\u2019 notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope.\r\n\r\nIn my study of Theophrastus\u2019 work, I came up with the phrase \u201ccritical endoxography\u201d a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus\u2019 De sensibus as a way of specifying how these \u201cwell-known views\u201d (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle\u2019s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators.\r\n\r\nDiels\u2019 modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico, 2022
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano, Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Macé, Arnaud (Ed.), Renaut, Olivier (Ed.)

Title	Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2022
Published in	Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum
Pages	517-526
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)	Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier
Translator(s)

Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criticizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibility of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle’s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides’ investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius’ opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/47OwUW41KSmtjb0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1549","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1549,"authors_free":[{"id":2706,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null},{"id":2707,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":null},{"id":2708,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mac\u00e9, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Mac\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2709,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaut, Olivier","free_first_name":"Olivier","free_last_name":"Renaut","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico","main_title":{"title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico"},"abstract":"Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criti\u00adcizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibil\u00adity of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle\u2019s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides\u2019 investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius\u2019 opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/47OwUW41KSmtjb0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1549,"section_of":1550,"pages":"517-526","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1550,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book\u2019s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato\u2019s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors.\r\n\r\nThe Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue\u2019s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions.\r\n\r\nA good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter\u2019s paper. Plato\u2019s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides\u2019 \u2018master-slave\u2019 example, which Carpenter explains as follows: \u2018his being a master does depend on someone else\u2019s being a slave \u2013 and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave\u2019 (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter\u2019s argument.\r\n\r\nOther contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e\u2013157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various \u2018thirds\u2019 in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. B\u00e9atrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald\u2019s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties.\r\n\r\nAs for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Br\u00e9mond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called \u2018dialectics\u2019. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson\u2019s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus\u2019 interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle\u2019s question \u2018what is ousia?\u2019.\r\n\r\nThe broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford\u2019s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1991), Sayre\u2019s Parmenides\u2019 Lesson (1996), Scolnicov\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (2003), Rickless\u2019 Plato\u2019s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill\u2019s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. \u2018Plato\u2019 Parmenides\u2019 on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BAdPSglZoxI7r9D","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1550,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum, 2022
By: Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Macé, Arnaud (Ed.), Renaut, Olivier (Ed.)

Title	Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier
Translator(s)

This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book’s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato’s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors. The Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue’s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions. A good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter’s paper. Plato’s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides’ ‘master-slave’ example, which Carpenter explains as follows: ‘his being a master does depend on someone else’s being a slave – and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave’ (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter’s argument. Other contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e–157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various ‘thirds’ in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. Béatrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald’s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties. As for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Brémond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called ‘dialectics’. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson’s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus’ interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle’s question ‘what is ousia?’. The broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford’s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen’s Plato’s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald’s Plato’s Parmenides (1991), Sayre’s Parmenides’ Lesson (1996), Scolnicov’s Plato’s Parmenides (2003), Rickless’ Plato’s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill’s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. ‘Plato’ Parmenides’ on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63). [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5tS2Jub3NyDq8Oq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1550","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1550,"authors_free":[{"id":2710,"entry_id":1550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":null},{"id":2711,"entry_id":1550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mac\u00e9, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Mac\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2712,"entry_id":1550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaut, Olivier","free_first_name":"Olivier","free_last_name":"Renaut","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum","main_title":{"title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum"},"abstract":"This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book\u2019s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato\u2019s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors.\r\n\r\nThe Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue\u2019s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions.\r\n\r\nA good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter\u2019s paper. Plato\u2019s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides\u2019 \u2018master-slave\u2019 example, which Carpenter explains as follows: \u2018his being a master does depend on someone else\u2019s being a slave \u2013 and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave\u2019 (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter\u2019s argument.\r\n\r\nOther contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e\u2013157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various \u2018thirds\u2019 in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. B\u00e9atrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald\u2019s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties.\r\n\r\nAs for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Br\u00e9mond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called \u2018dialectics\u2019. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson\u2019s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus\u2019 interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle\u2019s question \u2018what is ousia?\u2019.\r\n\r\nThe broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford\u2019s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1991), Sayre\u2019s Parmenides\u2019 Lesson (1996), Scolnicov\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (2003), Rickless\u2019 Plato\u2019s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill\u2019s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. \u2018Plato\u2019 Parmenides\u2019 on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63). [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5tS2Jub3NyDq8Oq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1550,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

Wenn der Steuermann ruft..." (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7), 2022
By: Krämer, Benedikt

Title	Wenn der Steuermann ruft..." (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2022
Journal	Hyperboreus
Volume	28
Issue	1
Pages	111-122
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Krämer, Benedikt
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Die vorliegende Betrachtung hat eine Interpretation angeboten, die sich eng an den Wortlaut von Kapitel 7 des Encheiridion hält. Demnach beschreibt Epiktet in der Tat zwei verschiedene Lebenssituationen zweier Menschen (oder desselben Menschen in unterschiedlichen Lebensphasen). Im ersten Fall thematisiert Epiktet die schicksalsbedingte Veränderung der Peristasen, der man entweder freiwillig oder unter Zwang Folge leisten kann. Im zweiten Fall kündigt der Ruf des Steuermanns den bevorstehenden Tod an. Das verbindende Element der Lebensbeschreibungen ist die stoische Spannungslehre. Der tugendhafte Mensch richtet sich in allen Situationen und bei allen Entscheidungen auf Gott aus und erhöht so den Tonos seines seelischen Pneumas. Im zweiten Fall spricht Epiktet aus seiner eigenen persönlichen Religiosität heraus psychagogisch wirksam die persönliche Religiosität des Lesers an. Wer den seelischen Tonos und die aufmerksame Ausrichtung auf Gott auch im fortgeschrittenen Alter bewahrt, wird den Tod – für eine gewisse Zeit – überdauern und eine Gemeinschaft mit Gott erleben. [conclusion p. 120-121]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zHBaqqHklM9rLNZ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1555","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1555,"authors_free":[{"id":2718,"entry_id":1555,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kr\u00e4mer, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Kr\u00e4mer","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)","main_title":{"title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)"},"abstract":"Die vorliegende Betrachtung hat eine Interpretation angeboten, die sich eng an den Wortlaut von Kapitel 7 des Encheiridion h\u00e4lt. Demnach beschreibt Epiktet in der Tat zwei verschiedene Lebenssituationen zweier Menschen (oder desselben Menschen in unterschiedlichen Lebensphasen).\r\n\r\nIm ersten Fall thematisiert Epiktet die schicksalsbedingte Ver\u00e4nderung der Peristasen, der man entweder freiwillig oder unter Zwang Folge leisten kann. Im zweiten Fall k\u00fcndigt der Ruf des Steuermanns den bevorstehenden Tod an.\r\n\r\nDas verbindende Element der Lebensbeschreibungen ist die stoische Spannungslehre. Der tugendhafte Mensch richtet sich in allen Situationen und bei allen Entscheidungen auf Gott aus und erh\u00f6ht so den Tonos seines seelischen Pneumas.\r\n\r\nIm zweiten Fall spricht Epiktet aus seiner eigenen pers\u00f6nlichen Religiosit\u00e4t heraus psychagogisch wirksam die pers\u00f6nliche Religiosit\u00e4t des Lesers an. Wer den seelischen Tonos und die aufmerksame Ausrichtung auf Gott auch im fortgeschrittenen Alter bewahrt, wird den Tod \u2013 f\u00fcr eine gewisse Zeit \u2013 \u00fcberdauern und eine Gemeinschaft mit Gott erleben.\r\n[conclusion p. 120-121]","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zHBaqqHklM9rLNZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1555,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hyperboreus","volume":"28","issue":"1","pages":"111-122"}},"sort":[2022]}

Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle), 2022
By: Menn, Stephen Philip

Title	Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle)
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury Publishing
Series	Ancient commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen Philip
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

With this translation, all 12 volumes of translation of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics have been published (full list below). In Physics 1.1–2, Aristotle raises the question of the number and character of the first principles of nature and feels the need to oppose the challenge of the paradoxical Eleatic philosophers who had denied that there could be more than one unchanging thing. This volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary on this selected text, and includes a brief introduction, extensive explanatory notes, indexes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rvwnWaF9gp9DQtr

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1557","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1557,"authors_free":[{"id":2720,"entry_id":1557,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen Philip","free_first_name":"Stephen Philip","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle)"},"abstract":"With this translation, all 12 volumes of translation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics have been published (full list below). In Physics 1.1\u20132, Aristotle raises the question of the number and character of the first principles of nature and feels the need to oppose the challenge of the paradoxical Eleatic philosophers who had denied that there could be more than one unchanging thing.\r\n\r\nThis volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary on this selected text, and includes a brief introduction, extensive explanatory notes, indexes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rvwnWaF9gp9DQtr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1557,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Publishing","series":"Ancient commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations, 2022
By: Menn, Stephen Philip

Title	Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	London; New York
Publisher	Bloomsbury Publishing
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen Philip
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Supporting the twelve volumes of translation of Simplicius' great commentary on Aristotle's Physics, all published by Bloomsbury in the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, between 1992 and 2021, this volume presents a general introduction to the commentary. It covers the philosophical aims of Simplicius' commentaries on the Physics and the related text On the Heaven; Simplicius' methods and his use of earlier sources; and key themes and comparison with Philoponus' commentary on the same text. Simplicius treats the Physics as a universal study of the principles of all natural things underlying the account of the cosmos in On the Heaven. In both treatises, he responds at every stage to the now lost Peripatetic commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which set Aristotle in opposition to Plato and to earlier thinkers such as Parmenides, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. On each passage, Simplicius after going through Alexander's commentary raises difficulties for the text of Aristotle as interpreted by Alexander. Then, after making observations about details of the text, and often going back to a direct reading of the older philosophers (for whom he is now often our main source, as he is for Alexander's commentary), he proposes his own solution to the difficulties, introduced with a modest 'perhaps', which reads Aristotle as in harmony with Plato and earlier thinkers. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kaEI6zadYuqduKC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1558","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1558,"authors_free":[{"id":2721,"entry_id":1558,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen Philip","free_first_name":"Stephen Philip","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations"},"abstract":" Supporting the twelve volumes of translation of Simplicius' great commentary on Aristotle's Physics, all published by Bloomsbury in the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, between 1992 and 2021, this volume presents a general introduction to the commentary. It covers the philosophical aims of Simplicius' commentaries on the Physics and the related text On the Heaven; Simplicius' methods and his use of earlier sources; and key themes and comparison with Philoponus' commentary on the same text. Simplicius treats the Physics as a universal study of the principles of all natural things underlying the account of the cosmos in On the Heaven. In both treatises, he responds at every stage to the now lost Peripatetic commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which set Aristotle in opposition to Plato and to earlier thinkers such as Parmenides, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. On each passage, Simplicius after going through Alexander's commentary raises difficulties for the text of Aristotle as interpreted by Alexander. Then, after making observations about details of the text, and often going back to a direct reading of the older philosophers (for whom he is now often our main source, as he is for Alexander's commentary), he proposes his own solution to the difficulties, introduced with a modest 'perhaps', which reads Aristotle as in harmony with Plato and earlier thinkers. [official abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kaEI6zadYuqduKC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1558,"pubplace":"London; New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Publishing","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

Simplicius. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote - Livre II, ch. 4-6, 2022
By: Lernould, Alain

Title	Simplicius. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote - Livre II, ch. 4-6
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2022
Publication Place	Villeneuve d’Ascq
Publisher	Presses Universitaires du Septentrion
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lernould, Alain
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Les chapitres 4-6 du Livre II de la Physique d'Aristote constituent le premier essai dans notre littérature philosophique occidentale consacré au hasard et à la fortune. On y trouve l'exemple de la pierre qui en tombant d'une hauteur sur le crâne de quelqu'un le tue, repris par Spinoza dans son Éthique. Aristote et Spinoza s'accordent pour dire que la pierre n'est pas tombée pour tuer. Mais le rejet du finalisme et en même temps de toute forme de contingence chez Spinoza est aux antipodes du finalisme dans lequel Aristote peut inscrire le hasard. Le commentaire de Simplicius apporte sur la doctrine d'Aristote des éclaircissements et des prolongements substantiels, encore peu connus, auxquels la présente traduction, la première en français, donne un accès direct. Simplicius permet en particulier de trancher sur la question de la traduction des termes t??? et a?t?µat?? en Phys. II, 4-6, à savoir, respectivement, « fortune » et « hasard » (plutôt que « hasard » et « spontanéité »). En bon néoplatonicien, il couronne son commentaire par un hymne à la déesse Fortune. Ce livre vient à la suite de la traduction du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique, Livre II, chap. 1-3, publiée par A. Lernould aux Presses universitaires du Septentrion en 2019. Il sera suivi d'un troisième volume qui contiendra la traduction du commentaire aux trois derniers chapitres (7-9) du Livre II de la Physique, qui portent sur la finalité naturelle et la nécessité. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/m7RF2NiZPJdZBFC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1556","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1556,"authors_free":[{"id":2719,"entry_id":1556,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lernould, Alain","free_first_name":"Alain","free_last_name":"Lernould","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote - Livre II, ch. 4-6","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote - Livre II, ch. 4-6"},"abstract":"Les chapitres 4-6 du Livre II de la Physique d'Aristote constituent le premier essai dans notre litt\u00e9rature philosophique occidentale consacr\u00e9 au hasard et \u00e0 la fortune. On y trouve l'exemple de la pierre qui en tombant d'une hauteur sur le cr\u00e2ne de quelqu'un le tue, repris par Spinoza dans son \u00c9thique. Aristote et Spinoza s'accordent pour dire que la pierre n'est pas tomb\u00e9e pour tuer. Mais le rejet du finalisme et en m\u00eame temps de toute forme de contingence chez Spinoza est aux antipodes du finalisme dans lequel Aristote peut inscrire le hasard.\r\nLe commentaire de Simplicius apporte sur la doctrine d'Aristote des \u00e9claircissements et des prolongements substantiels, encore peu connus, auxquels la pr\u00e9sente traduction, la premi\u00e8re en fran\u00e7ais, donne un acc\u00e8s direct. Simplicius permet en particulier de trancher sur la question de la traduction des termes t??? et a?t?\u00b5at?? en Phys. II, 4-6, \u00e0 savoir, respectivement, \u00ab fortune \u00bb et \u00ab hasard \u00bb (plut\u00f4t que \u00ab hasard \u00bb et \u00ab spontan\u00e9it\u00e9 \u00bb).\r\nEn bon n\u00e9oplatonicien, il couronne son commentaire par un hymne \u00e0 la d\u00e9esse Fortune. Ce livre vient \u00e0 la suite de la traduction du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique, Livre II, chap. 1-3, publi\u00e9e par A. Lernould aux Presses universitaires du Septentrion en 2019. Il sera suivi d'un troisi\u00e8me volume qui contiendra la traduction du commentaire aux trois derniers chapitres (7-9) du Livre II de la Physique, qui portent sur la finalit\u00e9 naturelle et la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/m7RF2NiZPJdZBFC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1556,"pubplace":"Villeneuve d\u2019Ascq","publisher":"Presses Universitaires du Septentrion","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

El extraño criterio utilizado para crear "la Doxa" de Parménides, 2021
By: Néstor-Luis Cordero

Title	El extraño criterio utilizado para crear "la Doxa" de Parménides
Type	Article
Language	Spanish
Date	2021
Journal	Dianoia
Volume	66
Issue	87
Pages	141-151
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Néstor-Luis Cordero
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In 1795 G.G. Fülleborn, a philologist of Kantian origin, grouped in two "parts" the recovered fragments of the Poem of Parmenides -"the Truth" and "the Doxa". With small modifications, this structure became classic and is accepted unanimously today. However, a reading of each fragment in an isolated way does not justify such division, which is based on an interpretation of Simplicius influenced by Aristotle, who finds already in Parmenides a sketch of the Platonic dualism between the "sensible" and the "intelligible", not actually present in the latter. This work analyzes critically the criterion used by Fülleborn, which is anachronistic in the case of a preplatonic thinker. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MC7go0ESvT7PDWp

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1592","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1592,"authors_free":[{"id":2792,"entry_id":1592,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"El extra\u00f1o criterio utilizado para crear \"la Doxa\" de Parm\u00e9nides","main_title":{"title":"El extra\u00f1o criterio utilizado para crear \"la Doxa\" de Parm\u00e9nides"},"abstract":"In 1795 G.G. F\u00fclleborn, a philologist of Kantian origin, grouped in two \"parts\" the recovered fragments of the Poem of Parmenides -\"the Truth\" and \"the Doxa\". With small modifications, this structure became classic and is accepted unanimously today. However, a reading of each fragment in an isolated way does not justify such division, which is based on an interpretation of Simplicius influenced by Aristotle, who finds already in Parmenides a sketch of the Platonic dualism between the \"sensible\" and the \"intelligible\", not actually present in the latter. This work analyzes critically the criterion used by F\u00fclleborn, which is anachronistic in the case of a preplatonic thinker. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MC7go0ESvT7PDWp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1592,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Dianoia","volume":"66","issue":"87","pages":"141-151"}},"sort":[2021]}

Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor: Pieter Sjoerd Hasper, 2021
By: Arnzen, Rüdiger, Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd (Contributor), Aristoteles

Title	Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor: Pieter Sjoerd Hasper
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2021
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Scientia Graeco-Arabica
Volume	30
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger , Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd (Contributor) , Aristoteles
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle's theory of eternal continuous motion and his argument from everlasting change and motion to the existence of an unmoved primary cause of motion, provided in book VIII of his Physics, is one of the most influential and persistent doctrines of ancient Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, the exact wording of Aristotle's discourse is doubtful and contentious at many places. The present critical edition of Ishaq ibn Hunayn's Arabic translation (9th c.) is supposed to replace the faulty edition by A. Badawi and aims at contributing to the clarification of these textual difficulties by means of a detailed collation of the Arabic text with the most important Greek manuscripts, supported by comprehensive Greek and Arabic glossaries. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NW1zXhIu1ijxgPf

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1405","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1405,"authors_free":[{"id":2190,"entry_id":1405,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"Arnzen","free_last_name":"R\u00fcdiger","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2438,"entry_id":1405,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":390,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd (Contributor)","free_first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","free_last_name":"Hasper","norm_person":{"id":390,"first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","last_name":"Hasper","full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2452,"entry_id":1405,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":263,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Aristoteles","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":263,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"Aristoteles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118650130","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor:\u00a0Pieter Sjoerd Hasper","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor:\u00a0Pieter Sjoerd Hasper"},"abstract":"Aristotle's theory of eternal continuous motion and his argument from everlasting change and motion to the existence of an unmoved primary cause of motion, provided in book VIII of his Physics, is one of the most influential and persistent doctrines of ancient Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, the exact wording of Aristotle's discourse is doubtful and contentious at many places. The present critical edition of Ishaq ibn Hunayn's Arabic translation (9th c.) is supposed to replace the faulty edition by A. Badawi and aims at contributing to the clarification of these textual difficulties by means of a detailed collation of the Arabic text with the most important Greek manuscripts, supported by comprehensive Greek and Arabic glossaries. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NW1zXhIu1ijxgPf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":390,"full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":263,"full_name":"Aristoteles","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1405,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Scientia Graeco-Arabica","volume":"30","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2021]}

The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle’s Physics, 2021
By: Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd, Arnzen, Rüdiger (Ed.)

Title	The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor: Pieter Sjoerd Hasper
Pages	CXIII-CLXXXVII
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd
Editor(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger
Translator(s)

The manuscript tradition for the eighth book of Aristotle’s Physics turns out to be quite complicated, in particular because of the influence of what later became the vulgate (group γ) on other parts of the tradition. This influence can be detected in every part of one of the two main groups, namely in the one constituted by EΨKbe and, to some extent, Λ—in K and be extensively, and in EΨ (both together and each individually) to a lesser degree. This makes it difficult to assess the authority of each of the individual manuscripts of this group, though clearly, E and Ψ are the most important ones. These claims about the extent of contamination from group γ in each part of the group constituted by EΨKbe cannot be made without the evidence of two further sources: Simplicius’ commentary and the β group. It cannot be established whether the main manuscript used by Simplicius is completely independent of the extant manuscript tradition, but that may also be because the evidence is almost exclusively drawn from just one book of the Physics. It seems as if Simplicius shares a small number of errors or rejectable readings with the γ group, but this cannot be taken to imply that Simplicius is to be located in the stemma as most closely related to that group. This also remains a possibility. As there is no real evidence in Physics VIII that Simplicius’ manuscript shares errors with parts of the direct tradition, we may, for the time being, assume that it is independent of the direct tradition, and thus, that in most cases, the consensus between Simplicius and a substantial part of the direct tradition provides the reading to be adopted. However, since the information provided by a commentary is by its nature rather patchy and does not lend itself to passing on insignificant errors, even more important is the position of the β group within the stemma. This group clearly shares a substantial list of errors with the γ group and thus, together with that group, constitutes the other half of the stemma. On the other hand, it often agrees with (parts of) the EΨKbe group in that it does not feature many of the changes to the text that are found in the γ group. Thus, stemmatically inappropriate constellations of consensus between parts of the EΨKbe group and the γ group can be identified as contaminations. The main exemplar of the Arabic translation is of similar importance for drawing these conclusions, since knowledge of its readings allows us to see the structure of the EΨKbe group far more clearly and to filter out all the many singular mistakes in E. It often joins E in providing the clearly superior reading and occasionally offers the correct reading alone. [conclusion p. CLXXXVI]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vSxI4j6pyBYMACx

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1409","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1409,"authors_free":[{"id":2203,"entry_id":1409,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":390,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","free_first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","free_last_name":"Hasper","norm_person":{"id":390,"first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","last_name":"Hasper","full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2204,"entry_id":1409,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The manuscript tradition for the eighth book of Aristotle\u2019s Physics turns out to be quite complicated, in particular because of the influence of what later became the vulgate (group \u03b3) on other parts of the tradition. This influence can be detected in every part of one of the two main groups, namely in the one constituted by E\u03a8Kbe and, to some extent, \u039b\u2014in K and be extensively, and in E\u03a8 (both together and each individually) to a lesser degree. This makes it difficult to assess the authority of each of the individual manuscripts of this group, though clearly, E and \u03a8 are the most important ones.\r\n\r\nThese claims about the extent of contamination from group \u03b3 in each part of the group constituted by E\u03a8Kbe cannot be made without the evidence of two further sources: Simplicius\u2019 commentary and the \u03b2 group. It cannot be established whether the main manuscript used by Simplicius is completely independent of the extant manuscript tradition, but that may also be because the evidence is almost exclusively drawn from just one book of the Physics. It seems as if Simplicius shares a small number of errors or rejectable readings with the \u03b3 group, but this cannot be taken to imply that Simplicius is to be located in the stemma as most closely related to that group. This also remains a possibility. As there is no real evidence in Physics VIII that Simplicius\u2019 manuscript shares errors with parts of the direct tradition, we may, for the time being, assume that it is independent of the direct tradition, and thus, that in most cases, the consensus between Simplicius and a substantial part of the direct tradition provides the reading to be adopted.\r\n\r\nHowever, since the information provided by a commentary is by its nature rather patchy and does not lend itself to passing on insignificant errors, even more important is the position of the \u03b2 group within the stemma. This group clearly shares a substantial list of errors with the \u03b3 group and thus, together with that group, constitutes the other half of the stemma. On the other hand, it often agrees with (parts of) the E\u03a8Kbe group in that it does not feature many of the changes to the text that are found in the \u03b3 group. Thus, stemmatically inappropriate constellations of consensus between parts of the E\u03a8Kbe group and the \u03b3 group can be identified as contaminations.\r\n\r\nThe main exemplar of the Arabic translation is of similar importance for drawing these conclusions, since knowledge of its readings allows us to see the structure of the E\u03a8Kbe group far more clearly and to filter out all the many singular mistakes in E. It often joins E in providing the clearly superior reading and occasionally offers the correct reading alone. [conclusion p. CLXXXVI]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vSxI4j6pyBYMACx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":390,"full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1409,"section_of":1405,"pages":"CXIII-CLXXXVII","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1405,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor:\u00a0Pieter Sjoerd Hasper","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Arnzen2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Aristotle's theory of eternal continuous motion and his argument from everlasting change and motion to the existence of an unmoved primary cause of motion, provided in book VIII of his Physics, is one of the most influential and persistent doctrines of ancient Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, the exact wording of Aristotle's discourse is doubtful and contentious at many places. The present critical edition of Ishaq ibn Hunayn's Arabic translation (9th c.) is supposed to replace the faulty edition by A. Badawi and aims at contributing to the clarification of these textual difficulties by means of a detailed collation of the Arabic text with the most important Greek manuscripts, supported by comprehensive Greek and Arabic glossaries. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NW1zXhIu1ijxgPf","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1405,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Scientia Graeco-Arabica","volume":"30","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2021]}

Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator, 2021
By: Tarrant, Harold

Title	Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2021
Journal	History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume	24
Issue	1
Pages	210-241
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century, and both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school’s attitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius, changed markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist lectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their construction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of demonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the text lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority continues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal validity. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/F0bFT161R2MXdut

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1464","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1464,"authors_free":[{"id":2537,"entry_id":1464,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"},"abstract":"Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,\r\nand both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school\u2019s\r\nattitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,\r\nchanged markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist\r\nlectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their\r\nconstruction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of\r\ndemonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the\r\ntext lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority\r\ncontinues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal\r\nvalidity. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/F0bFT161R2MXdut","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1464,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"210-241"}},"sort":[2021]}

Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 2021
By: Harari, Orna

Title	Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2021
Journal	History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume	24
Issue	1
Pages	122-139
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Harari, Orna
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius’ use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle’s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius’ assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle’s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle’s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach. [conclusion, p. 138]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/agke78hkU27DIVu

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1463","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1463,"authors_free":[{"id":2536,"entry_id":1463,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius\u2019 use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle\u2019s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius\u2019 assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle\u2019s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle\u2019s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach. [conclusion, p. 138]","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/agke78hkU27DIVu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1463,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"122-139"}},"sort":[2021]}

Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul, 2021
By: Aerts, Saskia, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	178-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Aerts, Saskia
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3. The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴ In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony. The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines. In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD

Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition, 2021
By: Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2021
Publication Place	Cambridge – New York
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps, 2021
By: Simplicius ,

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1474","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1474,"authors_free":[{"id":2553,"entry_id":1474,"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}},{"id":2554,"entry_id":1474,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":478,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":478,"first_name":"Jan Erik","last_name":"He\u00dfler","full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059760533","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2555,"entry_id":1474,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":544,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","free_first_name":"Federico Maria","free_last_name":"Petrucci","norm_person":{"id":544,"first_name":"Federico Maria","last_name":"Petrucci","full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1027675344","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","main_title":{"title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition"},"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":478,"full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":544,"full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2021]}

Title	Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2021
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Vrin
Series	Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Stevens, Annick(Stevens, Annick) .

Comment comprendre la thèse d’Aristote que le temps est un nombre? Est-il une durée ou un ordre de succession, un simple aspect du devenir ou le responsable de sa régularité? Quel est son rapport avec l’espace? Existe-t-il un temps unique pour les divers changements dans l’univers? Des repères comme l’instant, le présent, la simultanéité, ont-ils un sens indépendamment de notre esprit? De toutes ces questions ardemment débattues parmi les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote, Simplicius, le dernier d’entre eux et certainement le plus perspicace, se fait l’écho autant que l’arbitre. Ses propositions, étonnamment modernes, sont autant d’occasions pour nous de repenser ce concept qui défie encore physiciens et philosophes. Traduit pour la première fois en français, le texte est accompagné d’une présentation détaillée et de notes explicatives qui en facilitent la compréhension. Traduction, introduction et notes par A. Stevens. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JRtqfd3KmUBPEU1

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1516","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1516,"authors_free":[{"id":2632,"entry_id":1516,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2633,"entry_id":1516,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d\u2019Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d\u2019Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps"},"abstract":"Comment comprendre la th\u00e8se d\u2019Aristote que le temps est un nombre? Est-il une dur\u00e9e ou un ordre de succession, un simple aspect du devenir ou le responsable de sa r\u00e9gularit\u00e9? Quel est son rapport avec l\u2019espace? Existe-t-il un temps unique pour les divers changements dans l\u2019univers? Des rep\u00e8res comme l\u2019instant, le pr\u00e9sent, la simultan\u00e9it\u00e9, ont-ils un sens ind\u00e9pendamment de notre esprit? De toutes ces questions ardemment d\u00e9battues parmi les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote, Simplicius, le dernier d\u2019entre eux et certainement le plus perspicace, se fait l\u2019\u00e9cho autant que l\u2019arbitre. Ses propositions, \u00e9tonnamment modernes, sont autant d\u2019occasions pour nous de repenser ce concept qui d\u00e9fie encore physiciens et philosophes.\r\nTraduit pour la premi\u00e8re fois en fran\u00e7ais, le texte est accompagn\u00e9 d\u2019une pr\u00e9sentation d\u00e9taill\u00e9e et de notes explicatives qui en facilitent la compr\u00e9hension.\r\n\r\nTraduction, introduction et notes par A. Stevens. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2021","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JRtqfd3KmUBPEU1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1516,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que des Textes Philosophiques","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2021]}

Kathēgemōn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism, 2021
By: Christian Tornau

Title	Kathēgemōn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	201-226
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Christian Tornau
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

After Proclus, the formula ho hēmeteros kathēgemōn remains common among the Neoplatonists, especially in the Athenian school, but it rarely seems to carry the full metaphysical weight it has in Proclus. Ammonius and Damascius mention their teachers (Proclus and Isidorus, respectively) with respect and gratitude,⁸¹ and the hymnic diction of the opening lines of Ammonius’ commentary on the De Interpretatione is reminiscent of Proclus’ praise for Syrianus,⁸² but neither of them links this to any discernible ethical or metaphysical ideas. In the commentaries by Damascius that were taken down by his pupils at his lectures (ἀπὸ φωνῆς), ho hēmeteros kathēgemōn is nothing but a polite formula for the professor who is holding the course, i.e., Damascius himself.⁸³ In Simplicius, however, there are some passages concerning the issues of authority and orality that are easier to understand if the Proclan model is, at least to some extent, presupposed. So far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kathēgemōn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.⁸⁴ The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter’s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle’s deviation from his kathēgemōn Plato.⁸⁵ The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an ‘emulator’ of Plato (ζηλώσας, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),⁸⁶ but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays ‘how much he lags behind the guidance (ὑφήγησις) of his kathēgemōn.’⁸⁷ Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kathēgemōn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato’s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was ‘endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kathēgemōn [sc. Plato]’ and was himself able to offer theological guidance (ὑφήγησις) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.⁸⁸ Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism. Simplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,⁸⁹ takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus’ verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle ‘is not in disharmony with his kathēgemōn,’⁹⁰ implying—and sometimes stating—that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (κίνησις) and change (μεταβολή) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).⁹¹ Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle’s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato’s thought: It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (ἐννοίας) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25–26 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)⁹² When he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of ‘willing’ or ‘striving’ in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue: In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20–22 Diels.)⁹³ On this, too, Aristotle wants (βούλεται) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)⁹⁴ Simplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus’ own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius’ use of kathēgemōn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus’, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle’s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism. Concerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kathēgemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius’ lectures or written treatises.⁹⁵ However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria: My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. ‘It is,’ he said, ‘no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .’ I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23–60.1 Diels.)⁹⁶ Simplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.⁹⁷ We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument. Ultimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus’ era. [conclusion p. 222-226]

Online Resources

Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote, 2020
By: Baghdassarian, Fabienne (Ed.), Papachristou, Ioannis (Ed.), Toulouse, Stéphane (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1605","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1605,"authors_free":[{"id":2810,"entry_id":1605,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Christian Tornau","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Tornau","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"After Proclus, the formula ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn remains common among the Neoplatonists, especially in the Athenian school, but it rarely seems to carry the full metaphysical weight it has in Proclus. Ammonius and Damascius mention their teachers (Proclus and Isidorus, respectively) with respect and gratitude,\u2078\u00b9 and the hymnic diction of the opening lines of Ammonius\u2019 commentary on the De Interpretatione is reminiscent of Proclus\u2019 praise for Syrianus,\u2078\u00b2 but neither of them links this to any discernible ethical or metaphysical ideas. In the commentaries by Damascius that were taken down by his pupils at his lectures (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2), ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn is nothing but a polite formula for the professor who is holding the course, i.e., Damascius himself.\u2078\u00b3 In Simplicius, however, there are some passages concerning the issues of authority and orality that are easier to understand if the Proclan model is, at least to some extent, presupposed.\r\n\r\nSo far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kath\u0113gem\u014dn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.\u2078\u2074 The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter\u2019s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle\u2019s deviation from his kath\u0113gem\u014dn Plato.\u2078\u2075 The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an \u2018emulator\u2019 of Plato (\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),\u2078\u2076 but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays \u2018how much he lags behind the guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn.\u2019\u2078\u2077 Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato\u2019s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was \u2018endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kath\u0113gem\u014dn [sc. Plato]\u2019 and was himself able to offer theological guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.\u2078\u2078 Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism.\r\n\r\nSimplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,\u2078\u2079 takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus\u2019 verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle \u2018is not in disharmony with his kath\u0113gem\u014dn,\u2019\u2079\u2070 implying\u2014and sometimes stating\u2014that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (\u03ba\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and change (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f75) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).\u2079\u00b9 Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle\u2019s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato\u2019s thought:\r\n\r\n It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25\u201326 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)\u2079\u00b2\r\n\r\nWhen he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of \u2018willing\u2019 or \u2018striving\u2019 in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue:\r\n\r\n In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20\u201322 Diels.)\u2079\u00b3\r\n On this, too, Aristotle wants (\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)\u2079\u2074\r\n\r\nSimplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus\u2019 own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius\u2019 use of kath\u0113gem\u014dn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus\u2019, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle\u2019s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism.\r\n\r\nConcerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kath\u0113gemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius\u2019 lectures or written treatises.\u2079\u2075 However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria:\r\n\r\n My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. \u2018It is,\u2019 he said, \u2018no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .\u2019 I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23\u201360.1 Diels.)\u2079\u2076\r\n\r\nSimplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.\u2079\u2077 We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument.\r\n\r\nUltimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus\u2019 era. [conclusion p. 222-226]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1605,"section_of":1474,"pages":"201-226","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1474,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler-He\u00dfler-Petrucci_2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2021]}

Title	Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2020
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia
Series	International Aristotle Studies
Volume	9
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Baghdassarian, Fabienne , Papachristou, Ioannis , Toulouse, Stéphane
Translator(s)

On the question of the divine, as on others, the Neoplatonic tradition has gradually made the reading of Aristotle a philosophical preriquisite. The contributions gathered in this volume aim at understanding how the Neoplatonic readers of Aristotle’s theology interpreted, commented on and criticized these doctrines in the light of their philosophical orientations, but also how Aristotle’s philosophy was able to influence, in return, their own conceptions and nourish the Neoplatonic approach to the divine. In short, it is a question of specifying both the different hermeunetic uses to which the Aristotelian philosophy of the divine has lent itself and the conceptual effect of this reappropriation. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NRy52L806zUPIxF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1559","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1559,"authors_free":[{"id":2723,"entry_id":1559,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","free_first_name":"Fabienne","free_last_name":"Baghdassarian","norm_person":null},{"id":2724,"entry_id":1559,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Papachristou, Ioannis","free_first_name":"Ioannis","free_last_name":"Papachristou","norm_person":null},{"id":2725,"entry_id":1559,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Toulouse, St\u00e9phane","free_first_name":"St\u00e9phane","free_last_name":"Toulouse","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Relectures n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Relectures n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"On the question of the divine, as on others, the Neoplatonic tradition has gradually made the reading of Aristotle a philosophical preriquisite. The contributions gathered in this volume aim at understanding how the Neoplatonic readers of Aristotle\u2019s theology interpreted, commented on and criticized these doctrines in the light of their philosophical orientations, but also how Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was able to influence, in return, their own conceptions and nourish the Neoplatonic approach to the divine. In short, it is a question of specifying both the different hermeunetic uses to which the Aristotelian philosophy of the divine has lent itself and the conceptual effect of this reappropriation. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NRy52L806zUPIxF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1559,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":" International Aristotle Studies","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius, 2020
By: Ross, Alberto

Title	The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote
Pages	103-122
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ross, Alberto
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GNIHfMbbi3GaOjc

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1561","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1561,"authors_free":[{"id":2727,"entry_id":1561,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ross, Alberto","free_first_name":"Alberto","free_last_name":"Ross","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GNIHfMbbi3GaOjc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1561,"section_of":1559,"pages":"103-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1559,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Relectures n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ross2020","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"On the question of the divine, as on others, the Neoplatonic tradition has gradually made the reading of Aristotle a philosophical preriquisite. The contributions gathered in this volume aim at understanding how the Neoplatonic readers of Aristotle\u2019s theology interpreted, commented on and criticized these doctrines in the light of their philosophical orientations, but also how Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was able to influence, in return, their own conceptions and nourish the Neoplatonic approach to the divine. In short, it is a question of specifying both the different hermeunetic uses to which the Aristotelian philosophy of the divine has lent itself and the conceptual effect of this reappropriation. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NRy52L806zUPIxF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1559,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":" International Aristotle Studies","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc, 2020
By: Papy, J. (Ed.), Gielen, E. (Ed.)

Title	Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Papy, J. , Gielen, E.
Translator(s)

Confronted with the shifting idea of the authority of a text and its transmission and reception in a variety of genres, settings and contexts, this collective volume envisages to enlarge and deepen our understanding of these notions by tangling literary forgery and emulation. Authority and authoritative literary productions provoke all kinds of interest and emulation. Hermeneutical techniques, detailed exegesis and historical critique are invoked to put authority, and indeed also possible falsifications, to the test. Scholars from various disciplines working on texts, either authoritative or forged, and stemming from different periods of time, reflect on these topics on a methodological basis and from a hermeneutical entrance. In doing so, a threefold axis for questioning the phenomenon is proposed, namely the motif of falsification, the mechanism or technique applied, and the direct or indirect effect of this fraud. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1566","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1566,"authors_free":[{"id":2734,"entry_id":1566,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Papy, J. ","free_first_name":"J. ","free_last_name":"Papy","norm_person":null},{"id":2735,"entry_id":1566,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gielen, E. ","free_first_name":"E. ","free_last_name":"Gielen","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc","main_title":{"title":"Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc"},"abstract":"Confronted with the shifting idea of the authority of a text and its transmission and reception in a variety of genres, settings and contexts, this collective volume envisages to enlarge and deepen our understanding of these notions by tangling literary forgery and emulation. Authority and authoritative literary productions provoke all kinds of interest and emulation. Hermeneutical techniques, detailed exegesis and historical critique are invoked to put authority, and indeed also possible falsifications, to the test. Scholars from various disciplines working on texts, either authoritative or forged, and stemming from different periods of time, reflect on these topics on a methodological basis and from a hermeneutical entrance. In doing so, a threefold axis for questioning the phenomenon is proposed, namely the motif of falsification, the mechanism or technique applied, and the direct or indirect effect of this fraud. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1566,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy, 2020
By: Ulacco, Angela

Title	The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy
Type	Book Section
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Published in	Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc
Pages	183-214
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ulacco, Angela
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1567","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1567,"authors_free":[{"id":2736,"entry_id":1567,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy","main_title":{"title":"The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1567,"section_of":1566,"pages":"183-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1566,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Confronted with the shifting idea of the authority of a text and its transmission and reception in a variety of genres, settings and contexts, this collective volume envisages to enlarge and deepen our understanding of these notions by tangling literary forgery and emulation. Authority and authoritative literary productions provoke all kinds of interest and emulation. Hermeneutical techniques, detailed exegesis and historical critique are invoked to put authority, and indeed also possible falsifications, to the test. Scholars from various disciplines working on texts, either authoritative or forged, and stemming from different periods of time, reflect on these topics on a methodological basis and from a hermeneutical entrance. In doing so, a threefold axis for questioning the phenomenon is proposed, namely the motif of falsification, the mechanism or technique applied, and the direct or indirect effect of this fraud. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1566,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Book Review: Ivan A. Licciardi (2017). Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al de Caelo di Aristotele, Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario (Symbolon 44). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. , 2020
By: Manfred Kraus

Title	Book Review: Ivan A. Licciardi (2017). Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al de Caelo di Aristotele, Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario (Symbolon 44). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2020
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	41
Issue	1
Pages	201-207
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Manfred Kraus
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

È fuori d ’ogni dubbio che i commentari di Simplicio alla Fisica e al De Caelo di Aristotele siano d’importanza primaria per la nostra conoscenza della filosofia di Parmenide, come anche –ed anzitutto –per la trasmissione di una gran parte dei frammenti. Nell’anno 2016 Ivan Licciardi ha pubblicato il suo libro intitolato Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto, in cui ha dedicato la sua analisi al commentario alla Fisica. Solo un anno dopo, Licciardi ha completato questo primo studio con un altro libro, anch’esso con un titolo provocante: Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente, dedicato al commentario al De Caelo. Ambedue i libri sono strettamente legati l’uno all’altro. Nella premessa, l’Autore dice che quando ha pubblicato il primo libro aveva già raccolto quasi tutti i materiali per il secondo. Ha deciso, tuttavia, di pubblicarli in due volumi separati, da un lato per ragioni di quantità (perché un solo libro avrebbe superato le mille pagine), ma anche per una ragione scientifica sostanziale, e cioè perché nei due commentari, secondo Licciardi, Simplicio contempla il pensiero parmenideo da prospettive diverse. Mentre nel commentario alla Fisica l’interpretazione è incentrata sul rapporto fra l’essere e l’uno, nell’altro commentario, invece, il Commentatore si occupa del rapporto fra essere sen- sibile ed essere intelligibile e quindi del problema della generazione e del divenire. [Introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xCZ6vrIKvYZF5PU

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1583","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1583,"authors_free":[{"id":2778,"entry_id":1583,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Manfred Kraus","free_first_name":"Manfred","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Book Review: Ivan A. Licciardi (2017). Critica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al de Caelo di Aristotele, Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario (Symbolon 44). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. ","main_title":{"title":"Book Review: Ivan A. Licciardi (2017). Critica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al de Caelo di Aristotele, Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario (Symbolon 44). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. "},"abstract":"\u00c8 fuori d \u2019ogni dubbio che i commentari di Simplicio alla Fisica e al De Caelo di\r\nAristotele siano d\u2019importanza primaria per la nostra conoscenza della filosofia\r\ndi Parmenide, come anche \u2013ed anzitutto \u2013per la trasmissione di una gran\r\nparte dei frammenti. Nell\u2019anno 2016 Ivan Licciardi ha pubblicato il suo libro\r\nintitolato Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto, in cui ha dedicato la sua\r\nanalisi al commentario alla Fisica. Solo un anno dopo, Licciardi ha completato\r\nquesto primo studio con un altro libro, anch\u2019esso con un titolo provocante: \r\nCritica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente, dedicato al commentario al De Caelo.\r\nAmbedue i libri sono strettamente legati l\u2019uno all\u2019altro. Nella premessa,\r\nl\u2019Autore dice che quando ha pubblicato il primo libro aveva gi\u00e0 raccolto quasi \r\ntutti i materiali per il secondo. Ha deciso, tuttavia, di pubblicarli in due volumi\r\nseparati, da un lato per ragioni di quantit\u00e0 (perch\u00e9 un solo libro avrebbe\r\nsuperato le mille pagine), ma anche per una ragione scientifica sostanziale, e\r\ncio\u00e8 perch\u00e9 nei due commentari, secondo Licciardi, Simplicio contempla il\r\npensiero parmenideo da prospettive diverse. Mentre nel commentario alla\r\nFisica l\u2019interpretazione \u00e8 incentrata sul rapporto fra l\u2019essere e l\u2019uno, nell\u2019altro\r\ncommentario, invece, il Commentatore si occupa del rapporto fra essere sen-\r\nsibile ed essere intelligibile e quindi del problema della generazione e del\r\ndivenire. [Introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xCZ6vrIKvYZF5PU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1583,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"41","issue":"1","pages":"201-207"}},"sort":[2020]}

Les prières en prose de Simplicius, entre rhétorique et théologie, 2020
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.), Timotin, Andrei (Ed.)

Title	Les prières en prose de Simplicius, entre rhétorique et théologie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2020
Published in	Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité
Pages	209-267
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe , Timotin, Andrei
Translator(s)

Les prières en prose de Simplicius, quant à elles, appartiennent toutes à la catégorie des prières conclusives – dont le modèle est fourni par la prière à Pan à la fin du Phèdre de Platon, qui est une référence pour les prières philosophiques 158. De ce point de vue, formel, elles peuvent être rapprochées de la prière finale de la Réponse à Por- phyre (De Mysteriis) de Jamblique, ou de tel « hymne » en prose de Proclus marquant une césure importante dans la Théologie Platoni- cienne 159. Les autres prières néoplatoniciennes que nous avons citées ou évoquées sont soit des prières initiales soit des prières intervenant dans le cours même d’une œuvre. Mais la comparaison entre toutes ces prières – souvent complexes – et celles de Simplicius n’est pas illégitime et fait apparaître une indéniable parenté : Simplicius s’inscrit dans une tradition spécifiquement néoplatonicienne, où la rhéto- rique de la prière sert à l’expression d’un savoir théologique et d’une forme de piété personnelle dont le lecteur contemporain entend encore les accents. Ses prières sont tout à la fois des prières philosophiques et littéraires, des prières personnelles, des prières demandant des grâces particulières, mais aussi de véritables prières cultuelles, dans la mesure où, comme tous les professeurs néoplatoniciens, Simplicius célèbre par ses commentaires une véritable liturgie en l’honneur des dieux; et l’on a remarqué aussi l’affleurement d’une dimension théurgique que ses prières partagent avec les Hymnes de Proclus. Ces différentes catégories ne doivent pas être opposées, car elles se fondent ici dans l’unité dynamique de l’acte de parole, qui est aussi un élan de l’âme. Car si ces prières sont des textes écrits, leur vertu anagogique ne peut s’actualiser que dans la vibration sonore et les rythmes révélés par l’analyse stylistique, qui demandent à être prononcés et entendus. Le raffinement de l’écriture, ici, appelle une oralisation, et l’on se plaît à imaginer que Simplicius a pu, au moins en son privé, peut-être dans un discours « mental », prononcer ces prières et les faire résonner. Mais parce que ses prières sont l’achèvement de commentaires destinés à des « commençants » et non à des philosophes confirmés, Simplicius s’en tient à des déclarations théologiques élémentaires et s’exprime de façon beaucoup plus sobre que Jamblique ou Proclus ; son style clair et simple parvient à maîtriser la solennité qui est de règle dans des adresses aux dieux 163, mais comme ses prédécesseurs néoplatoniciens il ordonne chacune de ses prières au dieu ou aux dieux qui veillent, de façon précise, sur l’ordre de réalité visé par son enseignement. À tous ces dieux Simplicius demande un accompagnement bienveillant et une aide sur la voie d’une ἀναγωγή indissolublement scientifique et spirituelle qui dépassera la discursivité et à son terme n’aura plus besoin du langage, ni même de prière, car elle s’accomplira dans le Silence. [conclusion, pp. 264-267]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eXg1Z7UIknMFhi4

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1396","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1396,"authors_free":[{"id":2172,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2175,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2176,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":373,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Timotin, Andrei","free_first_name":"Andrei","free_last_name":"Timotin","norm_person":{"id":373,"first_name":"Andrei","last_name":"Timotin","full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1074855116","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, quant \u00e0 elles, appartiennent toutes \u00e0 la cat\u00e9gorie des pri\u00e8res conclusives \u2013 dont le mod\u00e8le est fourni par la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 Pan \u00e0 la fin du Ph\u00e8dre de Platon, qui est une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour les pri\u00e8res philosophiques 158. De ce point de vue, formel, elles peuvent \u00eatre rapproch\u00e9es de la pri\u00e8re finale de la R\u00e9ponse \u00e0 Por-\r\nphyre (De Mysteriis) de Jamblique, ou de tel \u00ab hymne \u00bb en prose de Proclus marquant une c\u00e9sure importante dans la Th\u00e9ologie Platoni-\r\ncienne 159. Les autres pri\u00e8res n\u00e9oplatoniciennes que nous avons cit\u00e9es ou \u00e9voqu\u00e9es sont soit des pri\u00e8res initiales soit des pri\u00e8res intervenant \r\ndans le cours m\u00eame d\u2019une \u0153uvre. Mais la comparaison entre toutes ces pri\u00e8res \u2013 souvent complexes \u2013 et celles de Simplicius n\u2019est pas \r\nill\u00e9gitime et fait appara\u00eetre une ind\u00e9niable parent\u00e9 : Simplicius s\u2019inscrit dans une tradition sp\u00e9cifiquement n\u00e9oplatonicienne, o\u00f9 la rh\u00e9to-\r\nrique de la pri\u00e8re sert \u00e0 l\u2019expression d\u2019un savoir th\u00e9ologique et d\u2019une forme de pi\u00e9t\u00e9 personnelle dont le lecteur contemporain entend encore \r\nles accents. Ses pri\u00e8res sont tout \u00e0 la fois des pri\u00e8res philosophiques et litt\u00e9raires, des pri\u00e8res personnelles, des pri\u00e8res demandant des gr\u00e2ces \r\nparticuli\u00e8res, mais aussi de v\u00e9ritables pri\u00e8res cultuelles, dans la mesure o\u00f9, comme tous les professeurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens, Simplicius c\u00e9l\u00e8bre \r\npar ses commentaires une v\u00e9ritable liturgie en l\u2019honneur des dieux; et l\u2019on a remarqu\u00e9 aussi l\u2019affleurement d\u2019une dimension th\u00e9urgique \r\nque ses pri\u00e8res partagent avec les Hymnes de Proclus. Ces diff\u00e9rentes cat\u00e9gories ne doivent pas \u00eatre oppos\u00e9es, car elles se fondent \r\nici dans l\u2019unit\u00e9 dynamique de l\u2019acte de parole, qui est aussi un \u00e9lan de l\u2019\u00e2me. Car si ces pri\u00e8res sont des textes \u00e9crits, leur vertu anagogique ne peut s\u2019actualiser que dans la vibration sonore et les rythmes r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s par l\u2019analyse stylistique, qui demandent \u00e0 \u00eatre prononc\u00e9s et entendus. \r\nLe raffinement de l\u2019\u00e9criture, ici, appelle une oralisation, et l\u2019on se pla\u00eet \u00e0 imaginer que Simplicius a pu, au moins en son priv\u00e9, peut-\u00eatre dans un discours \u00ab mental \u00bb, prononcer ces pri\u00e8res et les faire r\u00e9sonner. Mais parce que ses pri\u00e8res sont l\u2019ach\u00e8vement de commentaires \r\ndestin\u00e9s \u00e0 des \u00ab commen\u00e7ants \u00bb et non \u00e0 des philosophes confirm\u00e9s, Simplicius s\u2019en tient \u00e0 des d\u00e9clarations th\u00e9ologiques \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires et \r\ns\u2019exprime de fa\u00e7on beaucoup plus sobre que Jamblique ou Proclus ; son style clair et simple parvient \u00e0 ma\u00eetriser la solennit\u00e9 qui est de \r\nr\u00e8gle dans des adresses aux dieux 163, mais comme ses pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens il ordonne chacune de ses pri\u00e8res au dieu ou aux \r\ndieux qui veillent, de fa\u00e7on pr\u00e9cise, sur l\u2019ordre de r\u00e9alit\u00e9 vis\u00e9 par son enseignement. \u00c0 tous ces dieux Simplicius demande un accompagnement bienveillant et une aide sur la voie d\u2019une \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae indissolublement scientifique et spirituelle qui d\u00e9passera la discursivit\u00e9 et \u00e0 son terme n\u2019aura \r\nplus besoin du langage, ni m\u00eame de pri\u00e8re, car elle s\u2019accomplira dans le Silence. [conclusion, pp. 264-267]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eXg1Z7UIknMFhi4","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":373,"full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1396,"section_of":1397,"pages":"209-267","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1397,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Th\u00e9ories et practiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l'antiquit\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hoffmann2020a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ce livre \u00e9tudie les diff\u00e9rents modes de rapport entre les th\u00e9ories et les pratiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 dans un cadre interdisciplinaire qui r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes de l\u2019histoire religieuse des mondes grec et romain, de la philosophie religieuse tardo-antique et de la litt\u00e9rature patristique. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CTKw8APVQcq7YHq","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1397,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que de l'\u00e9cole des hautes \u00e9tudes sciences religieuses","volume":"185","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1396,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Th\u00e9ories et pratiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2020]}

Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité, 2020
By: Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.), Timotin, Andrei (Ed.)

Title	Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Series	Bibliothèque de l'école des hautes études sciences religieuses
Volume	185
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe , Timotin, Andrei
Translator(s)

Ce livre étudie les différents modes de rapport entre les théories et les pratiques de la prière à la fin de l’Antiquité dans un cadre interdisciplinaire qui réunit des spécialistes de l’histoire religieuse des mondes grec et romain, de la philosophie religieuse tardo-antique et de la littérature patristique. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DNW2qsXjHLZ3scI

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1397","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1397,"authors_free":[{"id":2173,"entry_id":1397,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2174,"entry_id":1397,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":373,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Timotin, Andrei","free_first_name":"Andrei","free_last_name":"Timotin","norm_person":{"id":373,"first_name":"Andrei","last_name":"Timotin","full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1074855116","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Th\u00e9ories et practiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l'antiquit\u00e9","main_title":{"title":"Th\u00e9ories et practiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l'antiquit\u00e9"},"abstract":"Ce livre \u00e9tudie les diff\u00e9rents modes de rapport entre les th\u00e9ories et les pratiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 dans un cadre interdisciplinaire qui r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes de l\u2019histoire religieuse des mondes grec et romain, de la philosophie religieuse tardo-antique et de la litt\u00e9rature patristique. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DNW2qsXjHLZ3scI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":373,"full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1397,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que de l'\u00e9cole des hautes \u00e9tudes sciences religieuses","volume":"185","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Boéthos de Sidon: Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe, 2020
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo (Ed.), Rashed, Marwan (Ed.)

Title	Boéthos de Sidon: Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2020
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB)
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan
Translator(s)

Cet ouvrage contient la première collection des fragments conservés, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe péripatéticien Boéthos de Sidon (Ier siècle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction française et un commentaire exhaustif. Les auteurs reconstituent pour la première fois l'œuvre de ce philosophe majeur de l'Antiquité et montrent comment son interprétation d'Aristote et sa critique du platonisme et du stoïcisme ont laissé leur marque sur l'histoire ultérieure de la philosophie. En se fondant sur plus de cinquante textes transmis à ce jour – dont certains, tant en grec qu'en arabe, n'avaient pas encore été pris en compte par les historiens de la philosophie grecque –, Riccardo Chiaradonna et Marwan Rashed reconstituent l'interprétation d'Aristote développée par Boéthos, fondée sur une lecture originale des Catégories et des Analytiques. Tant par les emprunts massifs que lui font Plotin et les commentateurs néoplatoniciens que par le combat auquel se livre Alexandre d'Aphrodise contre son interprétation d'Aristote, Boéthos marque un jalon décisif dans l'histoire de la philosophie. Ce livre est donc un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs intéressés par l'histoire de l'ontologie et de la logique dans l'Antiquité et la tradition aristotélicienne ancienne et médiévale. Cet ouvrage contient la première collection des fragments conservés, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe péripatéticien Boéthos de Sidon (Ier siècle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction française et un commentaire exhaustif. Ce livre est un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs intéressés par l'histoire de l'aristotélisme et, plus généralement, de la philosophie grecque dans son ensemble. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xgEgyCs5u1m2GF6

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1413","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1413,"authors_free":[{"id":2213,"entry_id":1413,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2214,"entry_id":1413,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote et philosophe","main_title":{"title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote et philosophe"},"abstract":"Cet ouvrage contient la premi\u00e8re collection des fragments conserv\u00e9s, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon (Ier si\u00e8cle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction fran\u00e7aise et un commentaire exhaustif. Les auteurs reconstituent pour la premi\u00e8re fois l'\u0153uvre de ce philosophe majeur de l'Antiquit\u00e9 et montrent comment son interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote et sa critique du platonisme et du sto\u00efcisme ont laiss\u00e9 leur marque sur l'histoire ult\u00e9rieure de la philosophie. En se fondant sur plus de cinquante textes transmis \u00e0 ce jour \u2013 dont certains, tant en grec qu'en arabe, n'avaient pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 pris en compte par les historiens de la philosophie grecque \u2013, Riccardo Chiaradonna et Marwan Rashed reconstituent l'interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Bo\u00e9thos, fond\u00e9e sur une lecture originale des Cat\u00e9gories et des Analytiques. Tant par les emprunts massifs que lui font Plotin et les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens que par le combat auquel se livre Alexandre d'Aphrodise contre son interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote, Bo\u00e9thos marque un jalon d\u00e9cisif dans l'histoire de la philosophie. Ce livre est donc un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par l'histoire de l'ontologie et de la logique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 et la tradition aristot\u00e9licienne ancienne et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale.\r\n\r\nCet ouvrage contient la premi\u00e8re collection des fragments conserv\u00e9s, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon (Ier si\u00e8cle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction fran\u00e7aise et un commentaire exhaustif. Ce livre est un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par l'histoire de l'aristot\u00e9lisme et, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, de la philosophie grecque dans son ensemble. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xgEgyCs5u1m2GF6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1413,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB)","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Simplicius the Neoplatonist in light of contemporary research: a critical review, 2020
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut,

Title	Simplicius the Neoplatonist in light of contemporary research: a critical review
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2020
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	Academia Philosophical Studies, 67
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Drummond , Ian() .

This book, translated from the French, offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [autor's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DcBrrXbvDC3iJTF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1436","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1436,"authors_free":[{"id":2285,"entry_id":1436,"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":2654,"entry_id":1436,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Drummond , Ian","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius the Neoplatonist in light of contemporary research: a critical review","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius the Neoplatonist in light of contemporary research: a critical review"},"abstract":"This book, translated from the French, offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires.\r\n\r\nHis role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning.\r\n\r\nThe second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [autor's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DcBrrXbvDC3iJTF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1436,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"Academia Philosophical Studies, 67","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought, 2020
By: Harry, Chelsea C. (Ed.), Habash, Justin  (Ed.)

Title	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2020
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Ancient Philosophy
Volume	6
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Harry, Chelsea C. , Habash, Justin
Translator(s)

In Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought, contributions by GottfriedHeinemann, Andrew Gregory, Justin Habash, Daniel W. Graham,Oliver Primavesi, Owen Goldin, Omar D. Álvarez Salas, ChristopherKurfess, Dirk L. Couprie, Tiberiu Popa, Timothy J. Crowley, LilianaCarolina Sánchez Castro, Iakovos Vasiliou, Barbara Sattler, Rosemary Wright, and a foreword by Patricia Curd explore the influences of early Greek science (6-4th c. BCE) on thephilosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, and the Hippocratics. Rather than presenting an unified narrative, the volume supports various ways to understand the development of the concept of nature, the emergence of science, and the historical context of topics such as elements, principles, soul, organization, causation,purpose, and cosmos in ancient Greek philosophy. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z20ST1xtbE5fFTL

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1458","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1458,"authors_free":[{"id":2501,"entry_id":1458,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":511,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Harry, Chelsea C.","free_first_name":"Chelsea C.","free_last_name":"Harry","norm_person":{"id":511,"first_name":"Chelsea C.","last_name":"Harry","full_name":"Harry, Chelsea C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1073135276","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2502,"entry_id":1458,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":512,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Habash, Justin\u202f","free_first_name":"Justin\u202f","free_last_name":"Habash","norm_person":{"id":512,"first_name":"Justin","last_name":"Habash","full_name":"Habash, Justin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1232220795","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought"},"abstract":"In Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought, contributions by GottfriedHeinemann, Andrew Gregory, Justin Habash, Daniel W. Graham,Oliver Primavesi, Owen Goldin, Omar D. \u00c1lvarez Salas, ChristopherKurfess, Dirk L. Couprie, Tiberiu Popa, Timothy J. Crowley, LilianaCarolina S\u00e1nchez Castro, Iakovos Vasiliou, Barbara Sattler, Rosemary Wright, and a foreword by Patricia Curd explore the influences of early Greek science (6-4th c. BCE) on thephilosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, and the Hippocratics. Rather than presenting an unified narrative, the volume supports various ways to understand the development of the concept of nature, the emergence of science, and the historical context of topics such as elements, principles, soul, organization, causation,purpose, and cosmos in ancient Greek philosophy. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z20ST1xtbE5fFTL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":511,"full_name":"Harry, Chelsea C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":512,"full_name":"Habash, Justin","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1458,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima, 2020
By: Gabor, Gary

Title	The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2020
Journal	Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
Volume	35
Issue	1
Pages	1-22
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Simplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius’s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius’s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pVUbfH8m3jQVsKw

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1466","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1466,"authors_free":[{"id":2539,"entry_id":1466,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim\u00adplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius\u2019s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius\u2019s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pVUbfH8m3jQVsKw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1466,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":[2020]}

Simplicius, 2020
By: Helmig, Christoph, Zalta, Edward N. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)	Zalta, Edward N.
Translator(s)

Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480–560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius’ works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that “the ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted” (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius’ works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see §5). Simplicius’ commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714), Simplicius’ importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker. Nineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels’ edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia. One of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius’ writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors—but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/simplicius/

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1468","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1468,"authors_free":[{"id":2541,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2542,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480\u2013560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius\u2019 works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that \u201cthe ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted\u201d (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius\u2019 works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see \u00a75).\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),\r\n\r\n Simplicius\u2019 importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker.\r\n\r\nNineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores\/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels\u2019 edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.\r\n\r\nOne of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius\u2019 writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors\u2014but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/archives\/sum2020\/entries\/simplicius\/","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1468,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima, 2020
By: Miller, Dana R.

Title	Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2020
Journal	Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
Volume	35
Issue	2
Pages	23-27
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Miller, Dana R.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition’s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius’s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3xAEvu1rDgjfUMU

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1467","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1467,"authors_free":[{"id":2540,"entry_id":1467,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":539,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Miller, Dana R.","free_first_name":"Dana R.","free_last_name":"Miller","norm_person":{"id":539,"first_name":"Dana R.","last_name":"Miller","full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128406704","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition\u2019s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius\u2019s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3xAEvu1rDgjfUMU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":539,"full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1467,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"35","issue":"2","pages":"23-27"}},"sort":[2020]}

What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity, 2020
By: Longo, Angela, Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Manolea, Christina-Panagiota (Ed.)

Title	What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus
Pages	115-141
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Longo, Angela
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Manolea, Christina-Panagiota
Translator(s)

So far, our inquiry has established that in late Antiquity the texts of Plato’s Phaedrus (245c–e) and Aristotle’s Physics (VIII 5) were thought to be referring to each other, and to show both a basic agreement and significant divergences. Plato’s contention that the self-mover is a principle of movement and is to be identified with the soul is contrasted with Aristotle’s belief that, despite the self-mover’s primacy among moving beings, the ultimate principle of movement is an unmoved mover, which only in the case of animals can be identified with the soul. What seems to prompt Hermias to compare Plato (whom he is commenting on) with Aristotle (whom he repeatedly mentions) is his aim to reconcile the two great authorities of Late Antique Neoplatonist thinkers. As we have seen, Hermias frequently, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s Physics, particularly chapter 5 of book VIII, but also other sections of it (e.g., book II for the distinction between natural and artificial beings, book IV for the belief that actual infinity does not exist; to this list we may add the explicit quotation of Phys. II 2194b.13 in the section of the scholia we discussed above). Besides, Hermias clearly, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s De anima for the view that no bodily motions occur in the soul (De an. I 3, 405b.31ss.) and that there exist a passive and an active intellect (De an. III 5). Our inquiry enables us to conclude that, historically speaking, it was the exegesis of Phaedrus 245c–e that originated the lexical and conceptual triad of “that which is moved by something else,” “that which moves by itself,” and “that which moves while remaining unmoved.” This triad, which played a key role in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, is rooted in the exegesis of Plato’s Phaedrus, yet it includes Aristotelian doctrines as well, most notably from the Physics. From the point of view of the exegetical strategy, although both Hermias and Simplicius aimed to harmonize the doctrines of the two highest authorities in Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, probably in an attempt to defend them from the unstoppable rise of Christianity, they display different levels of sympathy and theoretical effort. Showing his clear preference for Plato’s doctrine, Hermias seems to employ quite rudimentary philosophical tools. Simplicius, due to his greater sympathy for Aristotle, focuses on the definitions of the terms at issue. Finally, Simplicius can be said to make Hermias’ points more explicit and detailed. Hermias seems to take for granted the comparison between the Phaedrus and the Physics, and leaves it implicit, while Simplicius makes it explicit. Moreover, as compared to Hermias’ scholia on the Phaedrus, Simplicius’ extensive commentary on the Physics includes many more and much longer quotations from the works of Plato and Aristotle. [conclusion p. 140-141]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RbX36KCg4F9Wcfd

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1486","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1486,"authors_free":[{"id":2571,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2572,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2573,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":551,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","free_first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","free_last_name":"Manolea","norm_person":{"id":551,"first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","last_name":"Manolea","full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12962330X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"So far, our inquiry has established that in late Antiquity the texts of Plato\u2019s Phaedrus (245c\u2013e) and Aristotle\u2019s Physics (VIII 5) were thought to be referring to each other, and to show both a basic agreement and significant divergences.\r\n\r\nPlato\u2019s contention that the self-mover is a principle of movement and is to be identified with the soul is contrasted with Aristotle\u2019s belief that, despite the self-mover\u2019s primacy among moving beings, the ultimate principle of movement is an unmoved mover, which only in the case of animals can be identified with the soul.\r\n\r\nWhat seems to prompt Hermias to compare Plato (whom he is commenting on) with Aristotle (whom he repeatedly mentions) is his aim to reconcile the two great authorities of Late Antique Neoplatonist thinkers. As we have seen, Hermias frequently, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle\u2019s Physics, particularly chapter 5 of book VIII, but also other sections of it (e.g., book II for the distinction between natural and artificial beings, book IV for the belief that actual infinity does not exist; to this list we may add the explicit quotation of Phys. II 2194b.13 in the section of the scholia we discussed above). Besides, Hermias clearly, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle\u2019s De anima for the view that no bodily motions occur in the soul (De an. I 3, 405b.31ss.) and that there exist a passive and an active intellect (De an. III 5).\r\n\r\nOur inquiry enables us to conclude that, historically speaking, it was the exegesis of Phaedrus 245c\u2013e that originated the lexical and conceptual triad of \u201cthat which is moved by something else,\u201d \u201cthat which moves by itself,\u201d and \u201cthat which moves while remaining unmoved.\u201d This triad, which played a key role in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, is rooted in the exegesis of Plato\u2019s Phaedrus, yet it includes Aristotelian doctrines as well, most notably from the Physics.\r\n\r\nFrom the point of view of the exegetical strategy, although both Hermias and Simplicius aimed to harmonize the doctrines of the two highest authorities in Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, probably in an attempt to defend them from the unstoppable rise of Christianity, they display different levels of sympathy and theoretical effort. Showing his clear preference for Plato\u2019s doctrine, Hermias seems to employ quite rudimentary philosophical tools. Simplicius, due to his greater sympathy for Aristotle, focuses on the definitions of the terms at issue.\r\n\r\nFinally, Simplicius can be said to make Hermias\u2019 points more explicit and detailed. Hermias seems to take for granted the comparison between the Phaedrus and the Physics, and leaves it implicit, while Simplicius makes it explicit. Moreover, as compared to Hermias\u2019 scholia on the Phaedrus, Simplicius\u2019 extensive commentary on the Physics includes many more and much longer quotations from the works of Plato and Aristotle.\r\n[conclusion p. 140-141]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RbX36KCg4F9Wcfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":551,"full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1486,"section_of":1487,"pages":"115-141","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1487,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus is a collection of twelve essays that consider aspects of Hermias\u2019 philosophy, including his notions of the soul, logic, and method of exegesis. The essays also consider Hermias\u2019 work in the tradition of Neoplatonism, particularly in relation to the thought of Iamblichus and Proclus. The collection grapples with the question of the originality of Hermias\u2019 commentary\u2014the only extant work of Hermias\u2014which is a series of lectures notes of his teacher, Syrianus. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/odl9mOkFu3fCl3K","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1487,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Brill","series":"Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition","volume":"24","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Simplicius on the Void, 2020
By: Nikulin, Dmitri, Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Taormina, Daniela Patrizia (Ed.), Walter, Denis (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on the Void
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica
Pages	231-255
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Nikulin, Dmitri
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Taormina, Daniela Patrizia , Walter, Denis
Translator(s)

The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius’ Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle’s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle’s arguments, which abound in subtle observations, Simplicius comes up with several original interpretations regarding the nature of the negativity attributed to the void, demonstrating the impossible consequences of its acceptance. Following Aristotle, Simplicius distinguishes two kinds of the void, that between and outside bodies, and that interspersed with bodies. Locomotion through the void as an imputed place of motion is impossible, because there is no sufficient reason either for motion in a particular direction or for rest, since the void in its negativity allows for no distinctions, and thus for no natural places. A number of absurdities also follow from the acceptance of the void as scattered in bodies. The void is therefore out of place in the cosmos ontologically, mathematically, and physically. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX

Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica, 2020
By: Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Taormina, Daniela Patrizia (Ed.), Walter, Denis (Ed.)

Title	Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia
Series	Academia philosophical studies
Volume	71
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Taormina, Daniela Patrizia , Walter, Denis
Translator(s)

In diesem Sammelband wird die Idee des Körpers und der Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike untersucht. Dazu werden Fragen der Ontologie, der Mathematik, der Physik, der Astronomie, der Biologie, der Anthropologie, der Politik, der Theologie und der Ästhetik behandelt. Die Bedeutung des Themas ergibt sich sowohl aus seiner historischen Relevanz (für die Bildende Kunst, die Literatur, die Fachwissenschaften, die Religion und die allgemeine Kulturgeschichte) als auch aufgrund seiner philosophischen Wichtigkeit. Vom philosophischen Standpunkt betrachtet enthält die spätantike Reflexion über Körperlichkeit eine beeindruckende Fülle an Bedeutungen, die in diesem Band diskutiert werden. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YLmhzofUpyMnWop

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1539","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1539,"authors_free":[{"id":2684,"entry_id":1539,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2685,"entry_id":1539,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":431,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","free_first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","free_last_name":"Taormina","norm_person":{"id":431,"first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","last_name":"Taormina","full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305185","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2686,"entry_id":1539,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":569,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Walter, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"Walter","norm_person":{"id":569,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"Walter","full_name":"Walter, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1127658751","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike. Corporeit\u00e0 nella filosofia tardoantica","main_title":{"title":"K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike. Corporeit\u00e0 nella filosofia tardoantica"},"abstract":"In diesem Sammelband wird die Idee des K\u00f6rpers und der K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike untersucht. Dazu werden Fragen der Ontologie, der Mathematik, der Physik, der Astronomie, der Biologie, der Anthropologie, der Politik, der Theologie und der \u00c4sthetik behandelt. Die Bedeutung des Themas ergibt sich sowohl aus seiner historischen Relevanz (f\u00fcr die Bildende Kunst, die Literatur, die Fachwissenschaften, die Religion und die allgemeine Kulturgeschichte) als auch aufgrund seiner philosophischen Wichtigkeit. Vom philosophischen Standpunkt betrachtet enth\u00e4lt die sp\u00e4tantike Reflexion \u00fcber K\u00f6rperlichkeit eine beeindruckende F\u00fclle an Bedeutungen, die in diesem Band diskutiert werden. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YLmhzofUpyMnWop","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":431,"full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":569,"full_name":"Walter, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1539,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"Academia philosophical studies","volume":"71","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}

Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques, 2019
By: Baltussen, Han, Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	159-183
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

Simplicius’ exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and his interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian’s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions – which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts and authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of handling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features justify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius’ aim to annotate Aristotle’s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe

{"_index":"sire","_id":"655","_score":null,"_source":{"id":655,"authors_free":[{"id":943,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":944,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and\r\nhis interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian\u2019s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions \u2013 which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts\r\nand authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of\r\nhandling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features\r\njustify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius\u2019 aim to annotate Aristotle\u2019s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":655,"section_of":289,"pages":"159-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers, 2019
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	69-99
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QL5VZHREOe1cXap

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1320","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1320,"authors_free":[{"id":1954,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2376,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"},"abstract":"This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QL5VZHREOe1cXap","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1320,"section_of":289,"pages":"69-99","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus, 2019
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Koch, Dietmar (Ed.), Männlein-Robert, Irmgard (Ed.), Weidtmann (Ed.)

Title	Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2019
Published in	Platon und die Physis
Pages	241-253
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann
Translator(s)

In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erklärt, von denen alle anderen Realitäten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebensähnliche Kraft, die für die Schöpfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm

Platon und die Physis, 2019
By: Koch, Dietmar (Ed.), Männlein-Robert, Irmgard (Ed.), Weidtmann, Niels (Ed.)

Title	Platon und die Physis
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2019
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann, Niels
Translator(s)

Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beiträge zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im übertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder Göttlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ansätze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und pädagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept in den Blick genommen. Die zeitgenössische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen Überlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung der Platonischen Dialoge ist für die genannten Fragestellungen höchst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung späterer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons 'Physis'-Konzept. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vmsLFJtLo9CPIY0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1330","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1330,"authors_free":[{"id":1963,"entry_id":1330,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":131,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Koch, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Koch","norm_person":{"id":131,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Koch","full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/102787925X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2387,"entry_id":1330,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":454,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","free_first_name":"Irmgard","free_last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","norm_person":{"id":454,"first_name":"Irmgard","last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122904796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2388,"entry_id":1330,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":455,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","free_first_name":"Niels","free_last_name":"Weidtmann","norm_person":{"id":455,"first_name":"Niels","last_name":"Weidtmann","full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121934438","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platon und die Physis","main_title":{"title":"Platon und die Physis"},"abstract":"Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im \u00fcbertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder G\u00f6ttlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und p\u00e4dagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept in den Blick genommen. Die zeitgen\u00f6ssische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen \u00dcberlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung der Platonischen Dialoge ist f\u00fcr die genannten Fragestellungen h\u00f6chst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung sp\u00e4terer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons 'Physis'-Konzept. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vmsLFJtLo9CPIY0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":131,"full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":454,"full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":455,"full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1330,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances, 2019
By: Schwark, Marina

Title	Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2019
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	40
Issue	2
Pages	401-429
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Schwark, Marina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form ‘universal,’it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species–form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius’ commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating accidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual’s form coordinates the individual’s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter–form compound can assume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory of individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual’s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cpvCFatZj4VcLdC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1377","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1377,"authors_free":[{"id":2121,"entry_id":1377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances"},"abstract":"In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form \u2018universal,\u2019it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species\u2013form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius\u2019 commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating\r\naccidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual\u2019s form coordinates the individual\u2019s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter\u2013form compound can\r\nassume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory\r\nof individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual\u2019s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cpvCFatZj4VcLdC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1377,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"401-429"}},"sort":[2019]}

Simplicius, Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote. Livre ii, ch. 1-3. Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould, 2019
By: Simplicius, Lernould, Alain (Ed.),

Title	Simplicius, Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote. Livre ii, ch. 1-3. Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2019
Publication Place	Villeneuve d'Ascq
Publisher	Presses universitaires du Septentrion
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Lernould, Alain
Translator(s)	Lernould, Alain(Lernould, Alain) .

Le Livre ii de la Physique d’Aristote est une « véritable introduction à la philosophie de la nature » (Mansion). Après avoir dans le chapitre 1 donné sa fameuse définition de la nature comme « principe et cause de mouvement et de repos pour la chose en laquelle elle réside à titre premier par soi et non par accident », le Stagirite dans le chapitre 2 traite de la différence entre mathématiques et physique. Le chapitre 3, qui constitue « l’exposé le plus complet de l’étiologie aristotélicienne » (Crubellier-Pellegrin), livre la doctrine des quatre causes. Les chapitres 4 à 6 portent sur le hasard et la spontanéité. Dans le chapitre 8 est défendue la thèse du finalisme dans la nature et le chapitre 9 établit la distinction entre nécessité absolue et nécessité hypothétique. Simplicius de Cilicie, le dernier philosophe de l’École néoplatonicienne d’Athènes, a rédigé son commentaire sur la Physique vers 540, après son exil temporaire chez le roi de Perse Chosroès, et le commentaire au seul Livre ii de la Phusikê Akroasis d’Aristote constitue une somme de la philosophie de la nature de l’Antiquité tardive. Il n’existe pas à ce jour de traduction française intégrale du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique. Le présent volume contient la traduction annotée du commentaire au Livre ii, chap. 1-3, accompagnée par un résumé analytique du commentaire à Phys. ii, 1-3, la liste des modifications apportées aux texte grec établi par Diels (1882), un index des termes grecs, un index des noms anciens, une bibliographie. Il sera suivi de deux autres qui contiendront la traduction du commentaire aux, respectivement, chapitres 4-6 et 7-9 du Livre ii de la Physique. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3MfXV87nCOjNogF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1401","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1401,"authors_free":[{"id":2183,"entry_id":1401,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2184,"entry_id":1401,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":375,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lernould, Alain","free_first_name":"Alain","free_last_name":"Lernould","norm_person":{"id":375,"first_name":"Alain","last_name":"Lernould","full_name":"Lernould, Alain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142464856","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2185,"entry_id":1401,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":375,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Lernould, Alain","free_first_name":"Alain","free_last_name":"Lernould","norm_person":{"id":375,"first_name":"Alain","last_name":"Lernould","full_name":"Lernould, Alain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142464856","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Commentaire\u00a0sur\u00a0la\u00a0Physique\u00a0d\u2019Aristote.\u00a0Livre\u00a0ii,\u00a0ch.\u00a01-3. Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Commentaire\u00a0sur\u00a0la\u00a0Physique\u00a0d\u2019Aristote.\u00a0Livre\u00a0ii,\u00a0ch.\u00a01-3. Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould"},"abstract":"Le Livre ii de la Physique d\u2019Aristote est une \u00ab v\u00e9ritable introduction \u00e0 la philosophie de la nature \u00bb (Mansion). Apr\u00e8s avoir dans le chapitre 1 donn\u00e9 sa fameuse d\u00e9finition de la nature comme \u00ab principe et cause de mouvement et de repos pour la chose en laquelle elle r\u00e9side \u00e0 titre premier par soi et non par accident \u00bb, le Stagirite dans le chapitre 2 traite de la diff\u00e9rence entre math\u00e9matiques et physique. Le chapitre 3, qui constitue \u00ab l\u2019expos\u00e9 le plus complet de l\u2019\u00e9tiologie aristot\u00e9licienne \u00bb (Crubellier-Pellegrin), livre la doctrine des quatre causes. Les chapitres 4 \u00e0 6 portent sur le hasard et la spontan\u00e9it\u00e9. Dans le chapitre 8 est d\u00e9fendue la th\u00e8se du finalisme dans la nature et le chapitre 9 \u00e9tablit la distinction entre n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 absolue et n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 hypoth\u00e9tique.\r\nSimplicius de Cilicie, le dernier philosophe de l\u2019\u00c9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 son commentaire sur la Physique vers 540, apr\u00e8s son exil temporaire chez le roi de Perse Chosro\u00e8s, et le commentaire au seul Livre ii de la Phusik\u00ea Akroasis d\u2019Aristote constitue une somme de la philosophie de la nature de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. Il n\u2019existe pas \u00e0 ce jour de traduction fran\u00e7aise int\u00e9grale du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique.\r\nLe pr\u00e9sent volume contient la traduction annot\u00e9e du commentaire au Livre ii, chap. 1-3, accompagn\u00e9e par un r\u00e9sum\u00e9 analytique du commentaire \u00e0 Phys. ii, 1-3, la liste des modifications apport\u00e9es aux texte grec \u00e9tabli par Diels (1882), un index des termes grecs, un index des noms anciens, une bibliographie. Il sera suivi de deux autres qui contiendront la traduction du commentaire aux, respectivement, chapitres 4-6 et 7-9 du Livre ii de la Physique. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2019","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3MfXV87nCOjNogF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":375,"full_name":"Lernould, Alain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":375,"full_name":"Lernould, Alain","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1401,"pubplace":"Villeneuve d'Ascq","publisher":"Presses universitaires du Septentrion","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios, 2019
By: Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna, Xenophontos, Sophia (Ed.), Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini (Ed.)

Title	Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch
Pages	136-153
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna
Editor(s)	Xenophontos, Sophia , Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini
Translator(s)

The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch’s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise "On the Unity of the Academy" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction / Conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XM6bPhXl3bvnvIT

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1421","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1421,"authors_free":[{"id":2230,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":405,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","free_first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","free_last_name":"Simonetti","norm_person":{"id":405,"first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","last_name":"Simonetti","full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144280753","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2434,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":480,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","free_first_name":"Sophia","free_last_name":"Xenophontos","norm_person":{"id":480,"first_name":"Sophia","last_name":"Xenophontos","full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1112475400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2435,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":481,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","free_first_name":"Aikaterini","free_last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","norm_person":{"id":481,"first_name":"Aikaterini","last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036691888","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios"},"abstract":"The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch\u2019s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise \"On the Unity of the Academy\" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction \/ Conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XM6bPhXl3bvnvIT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":405,"full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":480,"full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":481,"full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1421,"section_of":1422,"pages":"136-153","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1422,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Greek biographer and philosopher Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 45-125 AD) makes a fascinating case-study for reception studies not least because of his uniquely extensive and diverse afterlife. Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plutarch offers the first comprehensive analysis of Plutarch\u2019s rich reception history from the Roman Imperial period through Late Antiquity and Byzantium to the Renaissance, Enlightenment and the modern era. The thirty-seven chapters that make up this volume, written by a remarkable line-up of experts, explore the appreciation, contestation and creative appropriation of Plutarch himself, his thought and work in the history of literature across various cultures and intellectual traditions in Europe, America, North Africa, and the Middle East. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E0eFuPTTIEjNhZC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1422,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Companions to Classical Reception","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus, 2019
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Manolea, Christina-Panagiota (Ed.), Sarah Klitenic Wear (Ed.)

Title	Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2019
Publication Place	Amsterdam
Publisher	Brill
Series	Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition
Volume	24
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Manolea, Christina-Panagiota , Sarah Klitenic Wear
Translator(s)

Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus is a collection of twelve essays that consider aspects of Hermias’ philosophy, including his notions of the soul, logic, and method of exegesis. The essays also consider Hermias’ work in the tradition of Neoplatonism, particularly in relation to the thought of Iamblichus and Proclus. The collection grapples with the question of the originality of Hermias’ commentary—the only extant work of Hermias—which is a series of lectures notes of his teacher, Syrianus. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JT8zFjOka3rHpsJ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1487","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1487,"authors_free":[{"id":2574,"entry_id":1487,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2575,"entry_id":1487,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":551,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","free_first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","free_last_name":"Manolea","norm_person":{"id":551,"first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","last_name":"Manolea","full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12962330X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2811,"entry_id":1487,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sarah Klitenic Wear","free_first_name":"Sarah","free_last_name":"Klitenic Wear","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus","main_title":{"title":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus"},"abstract":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus is a collection of twelve essays that consider aspects of Hermias\u2019 philosophy, including his notions of the soul, logic, and method of exegesis. The essays also consider Hermias\u2019 work in the tradition of Neoplatonism, particularly in relation to the thought of Iamblichus and Proclus. The collection grapples with the question of the originality of Hermias\u2019 commentary\u2014the only extant work of Hermias\u2014which is a series of lectures notes of his teacher, Syrianus. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JT8zFjOka3rHpsJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":551,"full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1487,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Brill","series":"Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition","volume":"24","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 , 2019
By: Sanchez, Liliana Carolina, Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Nejeschleba, Tomáš (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Pages	141-158
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sanchez, Liliana Carolina
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Nejeschleba, Tomáš
Translator(s)

The task of the Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle’s works, mostly in what has to do with dialectical passages, is usually “taken for granted instead of explained” (Baltussen 2008, 22). I’m borrowing these words employed by Han Baltussen in a different context to talk about the appreciation that the commentaries on the first book of the De Anima, in general, but ‘Simplicius’ in particular, have received from contemporary scholarship. The reason I feel entitled to make such an amplification of the scope of Baltussen’s judgment has to do, in fact, with the traditional way in which the commentator’s exegetical effort is seen. Their role is often considered in light of their doctrinal commitment to Neoplatonic doctrine and, notably, with their “harmonization” project of Plato’s and Aristotle’s thought. Because of that, these readings are held to distort Aristotle’s philosophical aims more than explain them. In the following lines, I aim to study one of those cases in which the exegetical labor of a Neoplatonic commentator is seen as carrying a doctrinal element that entails a certain distortion of Aristotle’s thought. The case that I propose to analyze is ‘Simplicius’’ commentary on the soul-harmony theory, for the commentator runs his interpretation with the aid of certain Neoplatonic theories that are alien to Aristotle’s thought. My aim is to track how the hermeneutical device that the commentator applies to the Aristotelian text is built up from the elements provided in the text itself, how the foreign doctrine is introduced, and how this elicits a global comprehension and a philosophical appropriation of the text. In order to do so, I will first present the passage and the alien theory that is being employed by ‘Simplicius’ to perform his exegesis; then, I will show how the commentator chains two passages of the text and produces an explanation for the refutation of the soul-harmony theory. Finally, I will describe what kind of interpretation is produced and how it serves to explain Aristotle’s challenge in using the hylomorphic model applied to psychology. By doing this, I hope that I can explain how the commentator feels authorized to introduce the alien theory, how he builds up his exegesis around a problem that he needs to solve, and consequently, what the philosophical product of such an interpretation is. [introduction p. 141-142]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tdfaeVFtEPFwy1s

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1492","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1492,"authors_free":[{"id":2586,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":554,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":" Sanchez, Liliana Carolina","free_first_name":"Liliana Carolina","free_last_name":" Sanchez","norm_person":{"id":554,"first_name":"Liliana Carolina ","last_name":"Sanchez","full_name":"Sanchez, Liliana Carolina ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2587,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2590,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":555,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_last_name":"Nejeschleba,","norm_person":{"id":555,"first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","last_name":"Nejeschleba,","full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103057413","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 ","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 "},"abstract":"The task of the Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle\u2019s works, mostly in what has to do with dialectical passages, is usually \u201ctaken for granted instead of explained\u201d (Baltussen 2008, 22). I\u2019m borrowing these words employed by Han Baltussen in a different context to talk about the appreciation that the commentaries on the first book of the De Anima, in general, but \u2018Simplicius\u2019 in particular, have received from contemporary scholarship.\r\n\r\nThe reason I feel entitled to make such an amplification of the scope of Baltussen\u2019s judgment has to do, in fact, with the traditional way in which the commentator\u2019s exegetical effort is seen. Their role is often considered in light of their doctrinal commitment to Neoplatonic doctrine and, notably, with their \u201charmonization\u201d project of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s thought. Because of that, these readings are held to distort Aristotle\u2019s philosophical aims more than explain them.\r\n\r\nIn the following lines, I aim to study one of those cases in which the exegetical labor of a Neoplatonic commentator is seen as carrying a doctrinal element that entails a certain distortion of Aristotle\u2019s thought. The case that I propose to analyze is \u2018Simplicius\u2019\u2019 commentary on the soul-harmony theory, for the commentator runs his interpretation with the aid of certain Neoplatonic theories that are alien to Aristotle\u2019s thought.\r\n\r\nMy aim is to track how the hermeneutical device that the commentator applies to the Aristotelian text is built up from the elements provided in the text itself, how the foreign doctrine is introduced, and how this elicits a global comprehension and a philosophical appropriation of the text.\r\n\r\nIn order to do so, I will first present the passage and the alien theory that is being employed by \u2018Simplicius\u2019 to perform his exegesis; then, I will show how the commentator chains two passages of the text and produces an explanation for the refutation of the soul-harmony theory. Finally, I will describe what kind of interpretation is produced and how it serves to explain Aristotle\u2019s challenge in using the hylomorphic model applied to psychology.\r\n\r\nBy doing this, I hope that I can explain how the commentator feels authorized to introduce the alien theory, how he builds up his exegesis around a problem that he needs to solve, and consequently, what the philosophical product of such an interpretation is.\r\n[introduction p. 141-142]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tdfaeVFtEPFwy1s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":554,"full_name":"Sanchez, Liliana Carolina ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":555,"full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1492,"section_of":1493,"pages":"141-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1493,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3oPlmdyJ3ZKj82v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1493,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 2019
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Nejeschleba, Tomáš (Ed.)

Title	Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2019
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Prometheus Trust
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Nejeschleba, Tomáš
Translator(s)

This anthology of 23 essays by scholars from around the world is published in association with the ISNS: it contains many of the papers presented in their 2017 annual conference. Contents: Why the Intelligibles are not Outside the Intellect Lloyd Gerson The Causality of the First Principle and the theory of Two Activities in Plotinus Enn. V.4 [7] 13 Andrei Timotin “Our concern, though, is not to be out of sin, but to be god:” Assimilation to god according to Plotinus  Thomas Vidart Eros as Soul’s ‘Eye’ in Plotinus: What does it see and not see?  Lela Alexidze Eternity and Time in Porphyry, Sentence 44 Lenka Karfíková Gender construction and social connections in Porphyry’s Ad Marcellam  Mathilde Cambron-Goulet What kind of souls did Proclus discover?  Svetlana Messiats Is self-knowledge one or multiple? Consciousness in ‘Simplicius’, Commentary on On the Soul Chiara Militello Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 Carolina Sánchez Neoplatonic Asclepius  Eugene Afonasin Porphyry and the Motif of Christianity as παράνομος Ilaria Ramelli The Reception of Xenophanes’ Philosophical Theology in Plato and the Christian Platonists Monika Recinová Cyril of Alexandria’s Theory of the Incarnate Union Re-examined Sergey Trostyanskiy The Erotic Magus: Ficino’s De amore as a Guide to Plato’s Symposium  Angela Hobbs Francesco Patrizi and the Oracles of Zoroaster: The Use of Chaldean Oracles in Nova de universis philosophia Vojtěch Hladky Ficino in the light of alchemy. Heinrich Khunrathʼs use of Ficinian metaphysics of light Martin Žemla Johannes Kepler and His Neoplatonic Sources  Jiří Michalík Georgius Raguseius against Astrology Luka Boršić and Ivana Skuhala Karasman The Platonic Framework of Valeriano Magni’s Philosophy Tomáš Nejeschleba Comenius’ Pansophia in the Context of Renaissance Neo-Platonism Jan Čížek The Spirit of Nature and the Spirit of God Jacques Joseph Lewis Campbell’s Studies on Plato and their Philosophical Significance Thomas Mróz Psychological Effects of Henôsis  Bruce J. MacLennan [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hkRNJ0N4ReN2FOY

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1493","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1493,"authors_free":[{"id":2588,"entry_id":1493,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2589,"entry_id":1493,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":555,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_last_name":"Nejeschleba","norm_person":{"id":555,"first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","last_name":"Nejeschleba,","full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103057413","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","main_title":{"title":"Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies"},"abstract":"This anthology of 23 essays by scholars from around the world is published in association with the ISNS: it contains many of the papers presented in their 2017 annual conference.\u202fContents:\r\n\r\nWhy the Intelligibles are not Outside the Intellect\u202fLloyd Gerson\r\n\r\nThe Causality of the First Principle and the theory of Two Activities in Plotinus Enn. V.4 [7] 13 Andrei Timotin\r\n\r\n\u201cOur concern, though, is not to be out of sin, but to be god:\u201d Assimilation to god according to Plotinus\u202f Thomas Vidart\r\n\r\nEros as Soul\u2019s \u2018Eye\u2019 in Plotinus: What does it see and not see?\u202f\u202fLela Alexidze\r\n\r\nEternity and Time in Porphyry, Sentence 44 Lenka Karf\u00edkov\u00e1\r\n\r\nGender construction and social connections in Porphyry\u2019s Ad Marcellam\u202f Mathilde Cambron-Goulet\r\n\r\nWhat kind of souls did Proclus discover?\u202f\u202fSvetlana Messiats\r\n\r\nIs self-knowledge one or multiple?\u202fConsciousness in \u2018Simplicius\u2019, Commentary on On the Soul Chiara Militello\r\n\r\nSimplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29\u202fCarolina S\u00e1nchez\r\n\r\nNeoplatonic Asclepius\u202f Eugene Afonasin\r\n\r\nPorphyry and the Motif of Christianity as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 Ilaria Ramelli\r\n\r\nThe Reception of Xenophanes\u2019 Philosophical Theology in Plato and the Christian Platonists\u202fMonika Recinov\u00e1\r\n\r\nCyril of Alexandria\u2019s Theory of the Incarnate Union Re-examined\u202fSergey Trostyanskiy\r\n\r\nThe Erotic Magus: Ficino\u2019s De amore as a Guide to Plato\u2019s Symposium\u202f Angela Hobbs\r\n\r\nFrancesco Patrizi and the Oracles of Zoroaster:\u202fThe Use of Chaldean Oracles in Nova de universis philosophia Vojt\u011bch Hladky\r\n\r\nFicino in the light of alchemy. Heinrich Khunrath\u02bcs use of Ficinian metaphysics of light\u202fMartin \u017demla\r\n\r\nJohannes Kepler and His Neoplatonic Sources\u202f Ji\u0159\u00ed Michal\u00edk\r\n\r\nGeorgius Raguseius against Astrology Luka Bor\u0161i\u0107 and Ivana Skuhala Karasman\r\n\r\nThe Platonic Framework of Valeriano Magni\u2019s Philosophy Tom\u00e1\u0161 Nejeschleba\r\n\r\nComenius\u2019 Pansophia in the Context of Renaissance Neo-Platonism Jan \u010c\u00ed\u017eek\r\n\r\nThe Spirit of Nature and the Spirit of God Jacques Joseph\r\n\r\nLewis Campbell\u2019s Studies on Plato and their Philosophical Significance\u202fThomas Mr\u00f3z\r\n\r\nPsychological Effects of Hen\u00f4sis\u202f Bruce J. MacLennan\r\n[official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hkRNJ0N4ReN2FOY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":555,"full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1493,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”?, 2019
By: Chriti, Maria, Golitsis, Pantelis (Ed.), Ierodiakonou, Katerina (Ed.)

Title	The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”?
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia
Pages	95-106
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chriti, Maria
Editor(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina
Translator(s)

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the “fall”of the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul’s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul’s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul’s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of ‘diversity’in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of ‘decay’and ‘obligation’. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1512","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1512,"authors_free":[{"id":2625,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":561,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chriti, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Chriti","norm_person":{"id":561,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Chriti","full_name":"Chriti, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2628,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2629,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the \u201cfall\u201dof the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul\u2019s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul\u2019s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul\u2019s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of \u2018diversity\u2019in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of \u2018decay\u2019and \u2018obligation\u2019. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":561,"full_name":"Chriti, Maria","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1512,"section_of":1513,"pages":"95-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1513,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gpbk6H9CplQZVge","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia, 2019
By: Golitsis, Pantelis (Ed.), Ierodiakonou, Katerina (Ed.)

Title	Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2019
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien
Volume	7
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina
Translator(s)

This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JDcdeQjoSV6hLxE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1513","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1513,"authors_free":[{"id":2626,"entry_id":1513,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2627,"entry_id":1513,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia"},"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JDcdeQjoSV6hLxE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}

Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3, 2019
By: Mouzala, Melina G.

Title	Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2019
Journal	Analogia
Volume	7
Issue	Byzantine Aristotle
Pages	43-82
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mouzala, Melina G.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

At the beginning of his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics II.2, Simplicius attempts to reveal the principal meaning of physis, that which in his view is preeminent above all others presented by Aristotle in Physics II.1. Through the arguments he uses to show what the principal meaning of physis is, we are also able to better understand the other meanings. These other meanings are, on the one hand, those which are discovered in the light of Simplicius’ insightful reading of it. Simplicius appears to recognize—or at least to be conscious of the fact—that this part of his Commentary constitutes an autonomous analysis and explanation of the different meanings of physis, which sets out to reveal its concealed principal meaning. My aim in this paper is to show that in his comments on Physics II.1, Simplicius is trying to offer an exegesis of the Aristotelian arguments, while in his comments regarding the beginning of Physics II.2, he proceeds to a bold reading of what Aristotle has said in chapter one. He does this by giving his own interpretation of the meaning of physis, within the frame which Aristotle had already sketched out in the previous chapter, but also by deviating to some extent from Aristotle. For Simplicius, the principal, albeit concealed, meaning of physis, within the Aristotelian philosophical framework, lies in the idea that nature is a sort of propensity for being moved and a sort of life, to wit, the lowest sort of life (eschatê zôê). [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BnCCI5k1m32XM47

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1541","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1541,"authors_free":[{"id":2691,"entry_id":1541,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mouzala, Melina G. ","free_first_name":"Melina G.","free_last_name":"Mouzala","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3"},"abstract":"At the beginning of his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics II.2, Simplicius attempts to reveal the principal meaning of physis, that which in his view is preeminent above all others presented by Aristotle in Physics II.1. Through the arguments he uses to show what the principal meaning of physis is, we are also able to better understand the other meanings. These other meanings are, on the one hand, those which are discovered in the light of Simplicius\u2019 insightful reading of it. Simplicius appears to recognize\u2014or at least to be conscious of the fact\u2014that this part of his Commentary constitutes an autonomous analysis and explanation of the different meanings of physis, which sets out to reveal its concealed principal meaning.\r\n\r\nMy aim in this paper is to show that in his comments on Physics II.1, Simplicius is trying to offer an exegesis of the Aristotelian arguments, while in his comments regarding the beginning of Physics II.2, he proceeds to a bold reading of what Aristotle has said in chapter one. He does this by giving his own interpretation of the meaning of physis, within the frame which Aristotle had already sketched out in the previous chapter, but also by deviating to some extent from Aristotle. For Simplicius, the principal, albeit concealed, meaning of physis, within the Aristotelian philosophical framework, lies in the idea that nature is a sort of propensity for being moved and a sort of life, to wit, the lowest sort of life (eschat\u00ea z\u00f4\u00ea). [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BnCCI5k1m32XM47","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1541,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Analogia","volume":"7","issue":"Byzantine Aristotle","pages":"43-82"}},"sort":[2019]}

Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due παρεκβάσεις in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31–8.15 e 28.32–37.9), 2019
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano

Title	Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due παρεκβάσεις in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31–8.15 e 28.32–37.9)
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2019
Journal	Epekeina. International Journal of Ontology History and Critics
Volume	10
Issue	1
Pages	1-32
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Osserviamo, a bilancio finale, quanto segue: Simplicio affida a due digressioni di In Physica I la sua veduta complessiva sui Presocratici. Mentre Aristotele, nella sua ricostruzione storico-dialettica, inserisce i predecessori dentro griglie concettuali nelle quali le posizioni vengono poste come contraddittorie fra di loro, Simplicio muove invece dal presupposto che la filosofia dei Presocratici nel suo complesso sia in realtà unitaria, armonica e coerente. Ma Simplicio, a differenza dello Stagirita, opera alla fine del mondo antico, e la sua necessità fu innanzitutto quella di tramandare ai posteri la tradizione antica affinché tale patrimonio non andasse disperso. Trattasi, qui, non di una necessità archeologica o erudita, bensì filosofica e ideologica a un tempo. Occorreva, peraltro, tramandare questo patrimonio come un che di armonico, unitario e intimamente coerente a un grado almeno paritetico rispetto a un’altra tradizione, quella cristiana, che dopo le incertezze e le transizioni che avevano caratterizzato il suo affacciarsi alla storia mondiale, aveva ormai consolidato il suo apparato dogmatico (specialmente dopo i concili di Efeso, Nicea e Calcedonia) e aveva dato concretezza strategica al suo piano di espansione e diffusione per il tramite di adeguati strumenti politici (editti di Milano e Tessalonica) atti a imporsi definitivamente quale visione dominante nell’Occidente alla fine del mondo antico. Lo strumentario di cui si serve Simplicio è un ampio ricorso alla citazione diretta dei predecessori, congiuntamente a un trattamento mirante a “limare” le differenze che intercorrono fra loro e ad accentuarne i tratti comuni. La cornice teorica che accoglie questo tipo di operazione, in buona sostanza una “platonizzazione” di tutti i Presocratici, è il neoplatonismo, della cui tradizione Simplicio è l’ultimo erede pagano. Vale la pena, a tal proposito, sottolineare un ultimo fatto: quando Simplicio fa riferimento a una tradizione filosofica unitaria e coerente, che dalle origini giunge fino al suo tempo, egli non qualifica siffatta tradizione come platonica, bensì come antica. Si tratta di un fatto che solo apparentemente contraddice quanto abbiamo asserito, e cioè che la teoria della συμφωνία dei Presocratici scaturisca da un’interpretazione, fondamentalmente, neoplatonica. Il riferirsi, da parte di Simplicio, a una tradizione indeterminata di veteres non andrà interpretato come uno sbiadimento della consapevolezza di possedere un’identità e un’eredità storica e filosofica ben determinata (che, fondamentalmente, è quella del neoplatonismo ateniese), bensì come testimonianza di un passaggio storico ormai avvenuto. Questo passaggio storico consiste in questo: Simplicio non opera in un contesto quale quello dell’età classica, in cui l’Accademia e il Peripato si contendevano l’egemonia filosofica e culturale ateniese, e non opera nemmeno, a seguire, in un contesto paragonabile al periodo successivo alla morte di Alessandro Magno, in cui il pensiero greco si trova disperso nei rivoli delle αἱρέσεις ellenistiche e in cui una delle cifre dominanti è costituita da un agonismo che non sembra avere mai fine. Il contesto storico in cui opera Simplicio è, diversamente, quello della fine di un mondo, quello pagano, a cui ne sta per subentrare un altro, quello della Christianitas. Non si tratta più, in sostanza, di affermare il primato di una scuola o di una tradizione di pensiero rispetto ad altre tradizioni che non appartengono a quella platonica, perché le priorità, adesso, sono mutate. In questo passaggio epocale, la proposta filosofica e culturale di Simplicio sembra consistere, in altre parole, in una sorta di panellenismo filosofico. Come Isocrate, al fine di proseguire la lotta contro i Persiani, aveva cercato di superare i contrasti fra le varie πόλεις, cercando di radunare le loro energie e di riunirle politicamente sotto l’egemonia ateniese, così Simplicio, al fine di proseguire la lotta contro i Cristiani, mira a superare i contrasti e le divergenze fra le varie tradizioni di pensiero, dichiarandoli apparenti, e teorizza, appunto, la loro συμφωνία, sotto l’egemonia platonica. L’ermeneutica che caratterizza il procedere di Simplicio è segnata, in particolare, dalla coppia concettuale “enigma/chiarezza”. Secondo il Commentatore, il secondo modulo espressivo appartiene in modo eminente a Platone (e in parte anche ad Aristotele), mentre il primo ai Presocratici, e in particolare a Parmenide, Empedocle e i Pitagorici. Sarebbe proprio la modalità espressiva enigmatica, per Simplicio, la causa principale dei fraintendimenti che avrebbero condotto alcuni a concepire i Presocratici in agonismo fra di loro, proprio come vorrebbe lasciar intendere certa dossografia cristiana. La classificazione simpliciana dei Presocratici (che, come si è visto, è una tripartizione) è funzionale, però, solo a una migliore comprensione delle ragioni della loro profonda unità. Conformemente all’uso tecnico e tardo settecentesco del termine «sinfonia», possiamo dire che nell’ottica di Simplicio la filosofia dei Presocratici fu una sinfonia nel senso di un brano composto da più movimenti – più propriamente una “sonata per orchestra”: ἡ παλαιὰ φιλοσοφία μένει ἀνέλεγκτος. [conclusion p. 29-32]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d1OxzfD4Xu8EZnr

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1554","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1554,"authors_free":[{"id":2717,"entry_id":1554,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)","main_title":{"title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)"},"abstract":"Osserviamo, a bilancio finale, quanto segue: Simplicio affida a due digressioni di In Physica I la sua veduta complessiva sui Presocratici. Mentre Aristotele, nella sua ricostruzione storico-dialettica, inserisce i predecessori dentro griglie concettuali nelle quali le posizioni vengono poste come contraddittorie fra di loro, Simplicio muove invece dal presupposto che la filosofia dei Presocratici nel suo complesso sia in realt\u00e0 unitaria, armonica e coerente. Ma Simplicio, a differenza dello Stagirita, opera alla fine del mondo antico, e la sua necessit\u00e0 fu innanzitutto quella di tramandare ai posteri la tradizione antica affinch\u00e9 tale patrimonio non andasse disperso.\r\n\r\nTrattasi, qui, non di una necessit\u00e0 archeologica o erudita, bens\u00ec filosofica e ideologica a un tempo. Occorreva, peraltro, tramandare questo patrimonio come un che di armonico, unitario e intimamente coerente a un grado almeno paritetico rispetto a un\u2019altra tradizione, quella cristiana, che dopo le incertezze e le transizioni che avevano caratterizzato il suo affacciarsi alla storia mondiale, aveva ormai consolidato il suo apparato dogmatico (specialmente dopo i concili di Efeso, Nicea e Calcedonia) e aveva dato concretezza strategica al suo piano di espansione e diffusione per il tramite di adeguati strumenti politici (editti di Milano e Tessalonica) atti a imporsi definitivamente quale visione dominante nell\u2019Occidente alla fine del mondo antico.\r\n\r\nLo strumentario di cui si serve Simplicio \u00e8 un ampio ricorso alla citazione diretta dei predecessori, congiuntamente a un trattamento mirante a \u201climare\u201d le differenze che intercorrono fra loro e ad accentuarne i tratti comuni. La cornice teorica che accoglie questo tipo di operazione, in buona sostanza una \u201cplatonizzazione\u201d di tutti i Presocratici, \u00e8 il neoplatonismo, della cui tradizione Simplicio \u00e8 l\u2019ultimo erede pagano. Vale la pena, a tal proposito, sottolineare un ultimo fatto: quando Simplicio fa riferimento a una tradizione filosofica unitaria e coerente, che dalle origini giunge fino al suo tempo, egli non qualifica siffatta tradizione come platonica, bens\u00ec come antica.\r\n\r\nSi tratta di un fatto che solo apparentemente contraddice quanto abbiamo asserito, e cio\u00e8 che la teoria della \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 dei Presocratici scaturisca da un\u2019interpretazione, fondamentalmente, neoplatonica. Il riferirsi, da parte di Simplicio, a una tradizione indeterminata di veteres non andr\u00e0 interpretato come uno sbiadimento della consapevolezza di possedere un\u2019identit\u00e0 e un\u2019eredit\u00e0 storica e filosofica ben determinata (che, fondamentalmente, \u00e8 quella del neoplatonismo ateniese), bens\u00ec come testimonianza di un passaggio storico ormai avvenuto.\r\n\r\nQuesto passaggio storico consiste in questo: Simplicio non opera in un contesto quale quello dell\u2019et\u00e0 classica, in cui l\u2019Accademia e il Peripato si contendevano l\u2019egemonia filosofica e culturale ateniese, e non opera nemmeno, a seguire, in un contesto paragonabile al periodo successivo alla morte di Alessandro Magno, in cui il pensiero greco si trova disperso nei rivoli delle \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 ellenistiche e in cui una delle cifre dominanti \u00e8 costituita da un agonismo che non sembra avere mai fine.\r\n\r\nIl contesto storico in cui opera Simplicio \u00e8, diversamente, quello della fine di un mondo, quello pagano, a cui ne sta per subentrare un altro, quello della Christianitas. Non si tratta pi\u00f9, in sostanza, di affermare il primato di una scuola o di una tradizione di pensiero rispetto ad altre tradizioni che non appartengono a quella platonica, perch\u00e9 le priorit\u00e0, adesso, sono mutate.\r\n\r\nIn questo passaggio epocale, la proposta filosofica e culturale di Simplicio sembra consistere, in altre parole, in una sorta di panellenismo filosofico. Come Isocrate, al fine di proseguire la lotta contro i Persiani, aveva cercato di superare i contrasti fra le varie \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, cercando di radunare le loro energie e di riunirle politicamente sotto l\u2019egemonia ateniese, cos\u00ec Simplicio, al fine di proseguire la lotta contro i Cristiani, mira a superare i contrasti e le divergenze fra le varie tradizioni di pensiero, dichiarandoli apparenti, e teorizza, appunto, la loro \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, sotto l\u2019egemonia platonica.\r\n\r\nL\u2019ermeneutica che caratterizza il procedere di Simplicio \u00e8 segnata, in particolare, dalla coppia concettuale \u201cenigma\/chiarezza\u201d. Secondo il Commentatore, il secondo modulo espressivo appartiene in modo eminente a Platone (e in parte anche ad Aristotele), mentre il primo ai Presocratici, e in particolare a Parmenide, Empedocle e i Pitagorici.\r\n\r\nSarebbe proprio la modalit\u00e0 espressiva enigmatica, per Simplicio, la causa principale dei fraintendimenti che avrebbero condotto alcuni a concepire i Presocratici in agonismo fra di loro, proprio come vorrebbe lasciar intendere certa dossografia cristiana. La classificazione simpliciana dei Presocratici (che, come si \u00e8 visto, \u00e8 una tripartizione) \u00e8 funzionale, per\u00f2, solo a una migliore comprensione delle ragioni della loro profonda unit\u00e0.\r\n\r\nConformemente all\u2019uso tecnico e tardo settecentesco del termine \u00absinfonia\u00bb, possiamo dire che nell\u2019ottica di Simplicio la filosofia dei Presocratici fu una sinfonia nel senso di un brano composto da pi\u00f9 movimenti \u2013 pi\u00f9 propriamente una \u201csonata per orchestra\u201d: \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\r\n[conclusion p. 29-32]","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d1OxzfD4Xu8EZnr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1554,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Epekeina. International Journal of Ontology History and Critics","volume":"10","issue":"1","pages":"1-32"}},"sort":[2019]}

Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire, 2018
By: Menn, Stephen

Title	Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2018
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	29
Pages	13-43
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry’s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases building on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander’s and Porphyry’s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic XeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QBnyRLAL62sCzX0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QBnyRLAL62sCzX0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":[2018]}

Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή), 2018
By: Schwark, Marina

Title	Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2018
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	29
Pages	59
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Schwark, Marina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (μορφή) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius’ commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus’ assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus’ position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus’assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the ’constitution thesis with Iamblichus’theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of σύλληψισς. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (κοινὴ σύλληψις) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vLFTw1MUlOcJyPx

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1144,"authors_free":[{"id":1717,"entry_id":1144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)"},"abstract":"The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus\u2019 assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus\u2019 position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus\u2019assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the \u2019constitution thesis with Iamblichus\u2019theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c2. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vLFTw1MUlOcJyPx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1144,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"59"}},"sort":[2018]}

Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius, 2018
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	101-125
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the κόσμος. Plato’s and Aristotle’s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities. From our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding of Simplicius’ way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius’ interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vZVYLur1bCGwnlh

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1154","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1154,"authors_free":[{"id":1728,"entry_id":1154,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary\r\non Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the \u03ba\u1f79\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities.\r\nFrom our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding\r\nof Simplicius\u2019 way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius\u2019 interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vZVYLur1bCGwnlh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1154,"section_of":289,"pages":"101-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis, 2018
By: Steel, C., Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	185-223
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, C.
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

Even Platonists, it seems, have to accept that the intellective soul, when connected to this earthy body, can never be entirely without imagination, not only in (1) practical thought or in (2) understanding sensible objects or in (3) mathematics, but even in its most excellent thought, (4) the contemplation of the intelligible forms. The role of imagination is, however, different in the four cases, as we have seen. Therefore, a good philosophical teacher will not only warn his students of the danger of imaginations, which may distort their thoughts, but also helps them to train and discipline their imagination so that it may be an obedient servant of the intellect. For that reason, he will use images and fantastic stories besides rational arguments. As Proclus explains in his introduction to his commentary of the myth of Er: The souls, which are by essence intellectual and full of incorporeal and intellectual reasons, have put on (ἐνδυσαμέναις) the imaginative intellect and cannot live without it in this place of generation [...] – for these souls, which have become impassible passible and without figures figurative (γενομέναις ἀπαθέσι παθητικαῖς, ἀμορφώτοις μορφωτικαῖς) this teaching through myths [as here in the myth of Er] is appropriate. Myths are particularly needed for those who only live according to imagination and only have practised the passive intellect, as is the case with the vulgar masses, who are incapable of following a purely rational argument. By contrast, some exceptional souls, which have set their mind on pure intellections, will be content with the intellectual light of the truth without needing the imaginary mise-en-scène of myths. But for us, Proclus says, who are ‘both together and have a twofold intellect’, the one which we really are and the one we have put on and projected outwards (i.e. the passive intellect linked to imagination), we find pleasures both in the fictive clothing of the story and in its deeper truth. Whereas the imaginative intellect ‘is stricken by the external and becomes thus ready for the path towards science,’ our true intellect ‘is nourished by what is inside the stories and becomes the contemplator of truth.’ [conclusion p. 211-212]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iQkklQKce7ANXjV

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1170","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1170,"authors_free":[{"id":1746,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, C.","free_first_name":"C.","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":2507,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis","main_title":{"title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis"},"abstract":"Even Platonists, it seems, have to accept that the intellective soul, when connected to this earthy body, can never be entirely without imagination, not only in (1) practical thought or in (2) understanding sensible objects or in (3) mathematics, but even in its most excellent thought, (4) the contemplation of the intelligible forms. The role of imagination is, however, different in the four cases, as we have seen. Therefore, a good philosophical teacher will not only warn his students of the danger of imaginations, which may distort their thoughts, but also helps them to train and discipline their imagination so that it may be an obedient servant of the intellect. For that reason, he will use images and fantastic stories besides rational arguments. As Proclus explains in his introduction to his commentary of the myth of Er:\r\n\r\nThe souls, which are by essence intellectual and full of incorporeal and intellectual reasons, have put on (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) the imaginative intellect and cannot live without it in this place of generation [...] \u2013 for these souls, which have become impassible passible and without figures figurative (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) this teaching through myths [as here in the myth of Er] is appropriate.\r\n\r\nMyths are particularly needed for those who only live according to imagination and only have practised the passive intellect, as is the case with the vulgar masses, who are incapable of following a purely rational argument. By contrast, some exceptional souls, which have set their mind on pure intellections, will be content with the intellectual light of the truth without needing the imaginary mise-en-sc\u00e8ne of myths. But for us, Proclus says, who are \u2018both together and have a twofold intellect\u2019, the one which we really are and the one we have put on and projected outwards (i.e. the passive intellect linked to imagination), we find pleasures both in the fictive clothing of the story and in its deeper truth. Whereas the imaginative intellect \u2018is stricken by the external and becomes thus ready for the path towards science,\u2019 our true intellect \u2018is nourished by what is inside the stories and becomes the contemplator of truth.\u2019 [conclusion p. 211-212]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iQkklQKce7ANXjV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1170,"section_of":289,"pages":"185-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter, 2018
By: Gabor, Gary, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Pages	569-579
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)

Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristotle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Simplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the Enchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good working picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.] While it would be unsafe to say that Simplicius does not misinterpret Plato at times (indeed, what commentator, ancient or modern, gets an author correct all of the time?), he does serve as an insightful, comprehensive, detailed—at times repetitive—but generally useful companion. Only further analysis into his reading and interpretation of Plato can provide the answers we would need to fully resolve that question. But I hope to have given some considerations as to why close attention to how Simplicius reads Plato repays the effort, and why the last Platonist of antiquity should be seen at least as an important partner in our interpretation of Plato today—as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5

§ 162. Simplikios, 2018
By: Baltussen, Han, Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Riedweg, Christoph (Ed.), Wyrwa, Dietmar (Ed.)

Title	§ 162. Simplikios
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2018
Published in	Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3)
Pages	2060-2084
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Riedweg, Christoph , Wyrwa, Dietmar
Translator(s)

Der Eintrag bietet eine ausführliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschließlich einer Diskussion über sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios’ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manichäismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die Übersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY

Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist, 2018
By: Busche, Hubertus (Ed.), Perkams, Matthias (Ed.)

Title	Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2018
Publication Place	Hamburg
Publisher	Felix Meiner Verlag
Series	Philosophische Bibliothek
Volume	694
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Busche, Hubertus , Perkams, Matthias
Translator(s)

Dieser Band vereinigt erstmals alle erhaltenen antiken Interpretationen zu der von Aristoteles in De anima III, v.a. in Kap. 4-5, skizzierten Lehre vom Geist (νοῦς) im Original und in deutscher Sprache. Diese Texte bieten nicht nur Interpretationen eines der meistkommentierten Lehrstücke der ganzen Philosophiegeschichte; vielmehr enthalten sie zum Teil auch eigenständige philosophische Auseinandersetzungen über den wirkenden und leidenden, den menschlichen und den göttlichen Geist sowie über die Möglichkeiten geistigen Erfassens überhaupt. Im Einzelnen enthält der Band die Deutungen von Theophrast (4. Jh. v. Chr.), Alexander von Aphrodisias (De anima und De intellectu [umstritten]; um 200), Themistios (4. Jh.), Johannes Philoponos, Priskian (Theophrast-Metaphrase), Pseudo-Simplikios, d.h. Priskian aus Lydien (De-anima-Kommentar; alle nach 500) und Pseudo-Philoponos, d.h. Stephanos von Alexandria (um 550). Da sich diese Kommentatoren nicht selten auf frühere Ausleger beziehen, wurde die Zusammenstellung um weitere wichtige Zeugnisse ergänzt, z. B. zur Aristoteles-Deutung des Xenokrates sowie eines Anonymus des 2. Jahrhunderts. Zwei allgemeine Einführungstexte der Herausgeber informieren über die systematischen Probleme der Auslegung von De anima III 4-5 sowie über die antike Auslegungsgeschichte dieses Textes. Spezielle Einleitungen zu den acht Interpretationen informieren über Leben und Werk ihrer Autoren sowie über die Besonderheiten ihrer Interpretation. Die Anmerkungen in den Anhängen geben weitere gedankliche, sachliche oder historische Erläuterungen zu einzelnen Textstellen. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity, 2018
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"246","_score":null,"_source":{"id":246,"authors_free":[{"id":315,"entry_id":246,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":442,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Busche, Hubertus","free_first_name":"Hubertus","free_last_name":"Busche","norm_person":{"id":442,"first_name":"Hubertus","last_name":"Busche","full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118125311","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":316,"entry_id":246,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist","main_title":{"title":"Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist"},"abstract":"Dieser Band vereinigt erstmals alle erhaltenen antiken Interpretationen zu der von Aristoteles in De anima III, v.a. in Kap. 4-5, skizzierten Lehre vom Geist (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) im Original und in deutscher Sprache. Diese Texte bieten nicht nur Interpretationen eines der meistkommentierten Lehrst\u00fccke der ganzen Philosophiegeschichte; vielmehr enthalten sie zum Teil auch eigenst\u00e4ndige philosophische Auseinandersetzungen \u00fcber den wirkenden und leidenden, den menschlichen und den g\u00f6ttlichen Geist sowie \u00fcber die M\u00f6glichkeiten geistigen Erfassens \u00fcberhaupt.\r\n\r\nIm Einzelnen enth\u00e4lt der Band die Deutungen von Theophrast (4. Jh. v. Chr.), Alexander von Aphrodisias (De anima und De intellectu [umstritten]; um 200), Themistios (4. Jh.), Johannes Philoponos, Priskian (Theophrast-Metaphrase), Pseudo-Simplikios, d.h. Priskian aus Lydien (De-anima-Kommentar; alle nach 500) und Pseudo-Philoponos, d.h. Stephanos von Alexandria (um 550). Da sich diese Kommentatoren nicht selten auf fr\u00fchere Ausleger beziehen, wurde die Zusammenstellung um weitere wichtige Zeugnisse erg\u00e4nzt, z. B. zur Aristoteles-Deutung des Xenokrates sowie eines Anonymus des 2. Jahrhunderts. Zwei allgemeine Einf\u00fchrungstexte der Herausgeber informieren \u00fcber die systematischen Probleme der Auslegung von De anima III 4-5 sowie \u00fcber die antike Auslegungsgeschichte dieses Textes. Spezielle Einleitungen zu den acht Interpretationen informieren \u00fcber Leben und Werk ihrer Autoren sowie \u00fcber die Besonderheiten ihrer Interpretation. Die Anmerkungen in den Anh\u00e4ngen geben weitere gedankliche, sachliche oder historische Erl\u00e4uterungen zu einzelnen Textstellen. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":442,"full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":246,"pubplace":"Hamburg","publisher":"Felix Meiner Verlag","series":"Philosophische Bibliothek","volume":"694","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Title	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2018
Publication Place	Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Brill's companions to classical reception
Volume	13
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: ‘Early Developments in Reception’ (four chapters); ‘Early Imperial Reception’ (nine chapters); and ‘Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism’ (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY

{"_index":"sire","_id":"259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":259,"authors_free":[{"id":1822,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2370,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2371,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2372,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Danielle A. ","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3), 2018
By: Riedweg, Christoph (Ed.), Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Wyrwa, Dietmar (Ed.)

Title	Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3)
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2018
Publication Place	Basel
Publisher	Schwabe
Volume	5/3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Riedweg, Christoph , Horn, Christoph , Wyrwa, Dietmar
Translator(s)

Mehr als fünfzig international auf ihrem Gebiet führende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler präsentieren in diesem fünften und letzten Band der Reihe «Die Philosophie der Antike» das überaus facettenreiche pagane, jüdische und frühchristliche philosophische Erbe der ersten sieben Jahrhunderte nach Christus – einer Periode, in der die Grundlagen nicht nur der abendländischen und byzantinischen, sondern auch der islamischen Denktradition gelegt worden sind. Mit den detaillierten und umfassenden Darstellungen, die den neuesten Stand der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung reflektieren, zielt das Werk darauf ab, für die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike zur ersten Anlaufstelle für Forschende der Altertumswissenschaften, aber auch der Theologie, der Philosophie, der Judaistik und der Islamwissenschaft sowie allgemein der Geisteswissenschaften zu werden. Der Disposition liegt die Überzeugung zugrunde, dass mit der paganen und der jüdisch-christlichen Philosophie nicht etwa zwei große weltanschauliche Blöcke gegeneinander abzugrenzen und somit isoliert zu betrachten sind, sondern dass es angemessener ist, diese in ihrem lebendigen Austausch miteinander darzustellen. Entsprechend wurde für den Bandaufbau ein Mischprinzip gewählt, bei dem die chronologische Folge die zentrale Rolle spielt, zudem aber auch das Lehrer-Schüler-Verhältnis, die Schulzugehörigkeit eines Autors und schließlich ebenfalls seine religiöse Orientierung und seine geografische Situierung berücksichtigt werden. So gelingt es, die zum Teil überraschenden Interdependenzen zwischen Autoren und Schulen, die durchaus religionsübergreifend festzustellen sind, deutlicher herauszuarbeiten. Die faszinierende, bis heute in unserer Kultur stark nachwirkende Epoche wird auf diese Art äußerst plastisch beschrieben und für die Gegenwart erschlossen.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR

{"_index":"sire","_id":"288","_score":null,"_source":{"id":288,"authors_free":[{"id":2194,"entry_id":288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":386,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Riedweg","norm_person":{"id":386,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Riedweg","full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111151228","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2195,"entry_id":288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2196,"entry_id":288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":387,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Wyrwa","norm_person":{"id":387,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Wyrwa","full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142943592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5\/3)","main_title":{"title":"Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5\/3)"},"abstract":"Mehr als f\u00fcnfzig international auf ihrem Gebiet f\u00fchrende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler pr\u00e4sentieren in diesem f\u00fcnften und letzten Band der Reihe \u00abDie Philosophie der Antike\u00bb das \u00fcberaus facettenreiche pagane, j\u00fcdische und fr\u00fchchristliche philosophische Erbe der ersten sieben Jahrhunderte nach Christus \u2013 einer Periode, in der die Grundlagen nicht nur der abendl\u00e4ndischen und byzantinischen, sondern auch der islamischen Denktradition gelegt worden sind. Mit den detaillierten und umfassenden Darstellungen, die den neuesten Stand der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung reflektieren, zielt das Werk darauf ab, f\u00fcr die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike zur ersten Anlaufstelle f\u00fcr Forschende der Altertumswissenschaften, aber auch der Theologie, der Philosophie, der Judaistik und der Islamwissenschaft sowie allgemein der Geisteswissenschaften zu werden.\r\n\r\nDer Disposition liegt die \u00dcberzeugung zugrunde, dass mit der paganen und der j\u00fcdisch-\u00adchristlichen Philosophie nicht etwa zwei gro\u00dfe weltanschauliche Bl\u00f6cke gegeneinander abzugrenzen und somit isoliert zu betrachten sind, sondern dass es angemessener ist, diese in ihrem lebendigen Austausch miteinander darzustellen. Entsprechend wurde f\u00fcr den Bandaufbau ein Mischprinzip gew\u00e4hlt, bei dem die chronologische Folge die zentrale Rolle spielt, zudem aber auch das Lehrer-Sch\u00fcler-Verh\u00e4ltnis, die Schulzugeh\u00f6rigkeit eines Autors und schlie\u00dflich ebenfalls seine religi\u00f6se Orientierung und seine geografische Situierung ber\u00fccksichtigt werden. So gelingt es, die zum Teil \u00fcberraschenden Interdependenzen zwischen Autoren und Schulen, die durchaus religions\u00fcbergreifend festzustellen sind, deutlicher herauszuarbeiten. Die faszinierende, bis heute in unserer Kultur stark nachwirkende Epoche wird auf diese Art \u00e4u\u00dferst plastisch beschrieben und f\u00fcr die Gegenwart erschlossen.","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":386,"full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":387,"full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":288,"pubplace":"Basel","publisher":"Schwabe","series":"","volume":"5\/3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier, 2018
By: Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2018
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Philosophie der Antike
Volume	36
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.

Online Resources

William of Moerbeke’s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides, 2018
By: Kraus, Manfred, Pulpito, Massimo (Ed.), Spangenberg, Pilar (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"289","_score":null,"_source":{"id":289,"authors_free":[{"id":2377,"entry_id":289,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","main_title":{"title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier"},"abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Title	William of Moerbeke’s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero
Pages	213-230
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Kraus, Manfred
Editor(s)	Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar
Translator(s)

Although Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s treatise De cáelo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De Cáelo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke’s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius’ commentary and Moerbeke’s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke’s renderings of the seven direct quotations of passages from Parmenides exhibited in In De Cáelo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mfCRRVJT48fHPdn

{"_index":"sire","_id":"389","_score":null,"_source":{"id":389,"authors_free":[{"id":510,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":221,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kraus, Manfred","free_first_name":"Manfred","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":221,"first_name":"Manfred","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1069796840","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2109,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2110,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Pilar","free_last_name":"Spangenberg","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Although Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s treatise De c\u00e1elo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De C\u00e1elo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke\u2019s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius\u2019 commentary and Moerbeke\u2019s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke\u2019s renderings of the seven direct quotations of \r\npassages from Parmenides exhibited in In De C\u00e1elo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mfCRRVJT48fHPdn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":221,"full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":389,"section_of":1366,"pages":"213-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pulpito_Spangenberg2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":389,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Axiothea","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"213-230"}},"sort":[2018]}

Der spätantike Philosoph. Die Lebenswelten der paganen Gelehrten und ihre hagiographische Ausgestaltung in den Philosophenviten von Porphyrios bis Damaskios, 2018
By: Hartmann, Udo

Title	Der spätantike Philosoph. Die Lebenswelten der paganen Gelehrten und ihre hagiographische Ausgestaltung in den Philosophenviten von Porphyrios bis Damaskios
Type	Monograph
Language	undefined
Date	2018
Publication Place	Bonn
Publisher	Rudolf Habelt Verlag
Series	Antiquitas Reihe I
Volume	72.1-3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hartmann, Udo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1570","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1570,"authors_free":[{"id":2739,"entry_id":1570,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hartmann, Udo","free_first_name":"Udo","free_last_name":"Hartmann","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Der sp\u00e4tantike Philosoph. Die Lebenswelten der paganen Gelehrten und ihre hagiographische Ausgestaltung in den Philosophenviten von Porphyrios bis Damaskios","main_title":{"title":"Der sp\u00e4tantike Philosoph. Die Lebenswelten der paganen Gelehrten und ihre hagiographische Ausgestaltung in den Philosophenviten von Porphyrios bis Damaskios"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2018","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1570,"pubplace":"Bonn","publisher":"Rudolf Habelt Verlag","series":"Antiquitas Reihe I","volume":"72.1-3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero, 2018
By: Pulpito, Massimo (Ed.), Spangenberg, Pilar (Ed.)

Title	ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2018
Publication Place	Bologna
Publisher	Diogene
Series	Axiothéa
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar
Translator(s)

Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, è offerto in onore di Néstor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale “Socratica IV” a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Xjp4m5CeCZWxQiu

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1366","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1366,"authors_free":[{"id":2052,"entry_id":1366,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2053,"entry_id":1366,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Spangenberg","free_last_name":"Pilar","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","main_title":{"title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero"},"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Xjp4m5CeCZWxQiu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, 2018
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2018
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	KU Leuven, Humanities and Social Sciences Group, Institute of Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The aim of this study was to analyze Simplicius’ explanation of qualitative properties in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. In this commentary, Simplicius discusses qualities in the framework of Aristotle’s categorial scheme and neither explicitly emphasizes the topic nor particularly problematizes it. In order to analyze Simplicius’ conception of quality, it was thus necessary to compile and systematize his remarks on qualities or remarks that might be relevant for an explanation of qualities from different places in the text. I grouped the different information in three main parts, each consisting of two to four chapters. The first part set out to provide some general information on Simplicius, his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories and the notion of quality in Aristotle in order to pave the way for an analysis of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities. While the second part remained to a large extent within the terminological framework of the Categories, the third part mainly drew on Neoplatonic theorems and focused on the ontological explanation of qualities within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. In what follows, I will summarize the results of the three main parts of the study and present difficulties that the study faced, shortcomings that the study includes and questions that the study evokes. The first part of the study elaborated on Simplicius’ exegesis and the place of his commentary in the Neoplatonic commentary tradition on Aristotle’s Categories. Its aim was to provide the reader with the textual and theoretical context in and with which Simplicius works. Hence, it focused in part on Simplicius as a member of the Neoplatonic school and his commentary as a part and witness of an exegetical tradition on Aristotle’s Categories that began centuries before Simplicius. However, Simplicius’ philosophical background, his sources and his presuppositions regarding Aristotle’s Categories are relevant for a study of his conception of qualities because they influence his treatment of the topic. Although Simplicius appears to have a keen interest in Aristotle’s text, he interprets it against the background of his own Neoplatonic views. As it has been pointed out in the first part of the study, there is the difficulty that Simplicius does not spell out or elaborate on Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrine in his commentary. Since the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework represents the theoretical framework in and with which Simplicius works, an understanding of its principles is necessary for an understanding of Simplicius’ discussions. In order to provide an explanation of Neoplatonic metaphysical assumptions when necessary, I thus relied on information that can be found in Neoplatonic authors prior to Simplicius. This way of proceeding implies the problematic assumption that Simplicius does not deviate from these authors regarding the understanding of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. This assumption is problematic because it may obscure Simplicius’ actual position if it differs. At least on the basis of Simplicius’ text, there is no indication that Simplicius’ conception of general elements of Neoplatonic metaphysics would differ from that of his predecessors. It has been pointed out that Simplicius frequently refers to predecessors and even states explicitly that, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, he follows the commentaries by Porphyry and Iamblichus in their interpretation of the Categories. Simplicius’ commentaries are well known for the richness of references to and presentations of views held by predecessors. He has often been used as a source of information on other philosophers for works that are no longer extant otherwise. His Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories is no exception; it is rich in references to philosophers belonging not only to the Neoplatonic tradition but also to other philosophical traditions, such as Stoicism or the Peripatetic school. The present study does not elaborate on references to members of other philosophical schools. A lot could have been said about Simplicius’ presentation and discussion of views held by these philosophers. It may even be fruitful to examine in detail Simplicius’ treatment and use of views held by philosophers working in the Stoic or Peripatetic tradition. Such investigations would also be interesting for our understanding of the historical development of certain concepts. The omission thus requires an explanation. The explanation is, admittedly, of a rather pragmatic nature. A discussion of all the views that Simplicius mentions would have exceeded the scope of this study. A selection always requires good reasons. Apart from Porphyry and Iamblichus, I could not justify in a consistent manner, with regard to the topic of this study, why I would focus on the one view more than on the other. Hence, although I think that it would be interesting to investigate the possible influences of, for example, Alexander of Aphrodisias or of Stoic views on Simplicius, I did not conduct such investigations in this study. They may be topics for possible future projects. As stated, the main sources for his commentary are, according to Simplicius himself, Porphyry’s long commentary on the Categories and, even to a bigger extent, Iamblichus’ commentary. The unfortunate fact that the two commentaries are no longer extant and Simplicius’ modest self-presentation as a commentator make it difficult to assess the proportion between copying or paraphrasing his sources and presenting own ideas in Simplicius’ commentary. It has also been pointed out that some, if not all, presuppositions of Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Categories stem from his main source Iamblichus. Simplicius’ core presuppositions are his interpretation of the Categories’ σκοπός as a synthesis of words, beings and notions, his assumption that the main source of the Categories is the Pseudo-Pythagorean treatise On the Universal Formulae by Pseudo-Archytas, his conviction that Aristotle uses obscurity on purpose in his writings and the assumption that there is a harmony between Aristotle and Plato on the majority of points. As it has been shown in the course of the study, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, Simplicius appears to extend the idea of a harmony also to Porphyry and Iamblichus. Besides the attempt to provide the philosophical background of Simplicius’ commentary, to contextualize it within the commentary tradition on the Categories, and to introduce Simplicius’ main sources and core presuppositions in this commentary, the first part also includes an overview of the accounts of quality that can be found in Aristotle’s works. This overview is meant to show that Aristotle approaches qualities from different perspectives in his works. I distinguished between two main approaches: 1. the explanation of qualities from a logical-metaphysical perspective, included, for example, in Aristotle’s Categories and Metaphysics, and 2. the explanation of qualities from the perspective of natural philosophy, included, for example, in Aristotle’s De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione. As the analyses especially in part three suggested, Simplicius appears not only to be well acquainted with the explanations of qualities that Aristotle presents elsewhere, he also integrates elements of these explanations into his discussion of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius’ explanation of quality. As stated, in order to analyze Simplicius’ conception of quality, it was necessary to compile and systematize relevant remarks from different places in the text. This way of proceeding requires caution, as it runs the risk of neglecting the context of the relevant individual passages. Given that Simplicius works closely and in sequence with Aristotle’s text and discusses aspects of the text within the framework of the lemmata on which he comments, a consideration of the context, however, is as important as a thorough analysis of the relevant passages themselves. The present study tried to accommodate both methodological strategies. It thereby runs another risk common to compromises, namely to fail to do both a thorough investigation of individual passages and a consideration of the context properly. I gave priority to the thought that both methodological strategies are indispensable for an understanding of Simplicius’ conception of qualities. The second part aimed at providing a categorial analysis of quality. It focused on quality as one of the ten Aristotelian categories and thus dealt with the regulations and characteristics that apply to quality qua category. Aristotle draws a distinction between the category of substance and the other nine categories in that he ascribes an ontological priority to the former. As suggested by Aristotle’s fourfold division of τὰ ὄντα in the second chapter of the Categories but not explicitly articulated with regard to any of the nine non-substantial categories, Simplicius transposes the intracategorial structure and regulations spelled out for the category of substance onto the category of quality. The category of quality thus comprises genera and species of quality and their individual instantiations. Moreover, the genera of quality are synonymously predicated of their species which in turn are synonymously predicated of their instantiations. According to the rule of transitivity, which equally applies, the genera of quality are consequently also synonymously predicated of the instantiations. While the intracategorial relation, i.e. the relation between genera and species and instantiations of quality, is a relation of unilinear synonymous predication, the intercategorial relation, i.e. the relation between a quality and a substance, is a relation of homonymous predication. Although Aristotle does not explicitly mention all these features of quality in his Categories, they are compatible with his text. Aristotle’s text leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation which not only facilitates the transposition of regulations and structural elements within the categorial theory itself but also enables the integration of, or harmonization with, (Neo)Platonic theoretical elements. Simplicius’ harmonizing tendency as an interpretative strategy becomes most apparent in the analyses conducted in the second part of this study. It is suggested by Simplicius’ way of presenting predication and participation as two different but non-conflicting theories used to explain the relation among entities in the natural realm, by his interpretation of the predicate as an immanent universal, by his explanation of the ἴδιον of quality against the background of likeness and unlikeness and by his use of the idea of a latitude of participation in his discussion of the question whether the category of quality admits of a more and a less. The discussions in the second part have also shown that some problems or questions that scholars have raised with regard to Aristotle’s text appeared to be unproblematic for Simplicius, such as the compatibility of the categorial theory with hylomorphism or the interpretation of homonymy as comprehensive homonymy. It is worth noting that Simplicius displays a charitable interpretation of Aristotle’s text with regard to these questions. Other topics discussed in Aristotelian scholarship are more problematic for Simplicius, especially those which are in apparent conflict with Platonic doctrine. He explicitly addresses the apparent primacy of individual substances in the Categories and tries at length to reconcile it with the Platonic view that the forms are prior to the individuals. He does not openly address 219 but implicitly deviates from the assumption held by many Aristotelian scholars that synonymous predication yields essential predication. He argues that, although genera, species and differentiae are all synonymously predicated of that which is beneath them, only genera and species are also essentially predicated of that which is beneath them whereas the differentiae are not essentially but qualitatively predicated of that which is beneath them. It also becomes apparent in the second part that the study of quality in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories includes an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified. The differentiation of the possible meanings of the qualified represents the basis, or preparatory work, for such an analysis. The third part of the study exceeds to some extent the categorial framework and expands on the Neoplatonic elements of Simplicius’ explanation of quality and its relation to the qualified. In this regard, it also elaborates on certain notions that have already been introduced in the second part but become most relevant in the context of an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified within a Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The notion of participation is one of them. Simplicius does not only present participation, like predication, as a model to explain the relation between intracategorial entities in his omments on chapter five but he also explicitly applies it to the entities subsumed under the category of quality, when he refers to the quality as μετεχόμενον and to the qualified as μετέχον. Simplicius associates quality and the qualified with these two elements of the Neoplatonic triad of participation and analogically applies the characteristics of those elements (and their relation to each other) to quality and the qualified (and their relation to each other). For an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified, it was thus helpful to have a closer look at the structure of the triad of participation, and especially at its elements, their characteristics and their relations to each other. The association of quality with the μετεχόμενον and of the qualified with the μετέχον, however, transfers a problem to the category of quality that Simplicius, like other Neoplatonists, mainly discusses in the course of his comments on the category of substance: the question of ontological dependence and, particularly, whether the ontological relation between quality and the qualified is a relation of ontological priority and posteriority or of ontological simultaneity. Simplicius describes quality as that which is participated in by the qualified, as that which is in the qualified and of which its being and its being participated in is one. The qualified in turn participates in quality and receives its being qualified from the quality. Simplicius thus appears to describe the relation between quality and the qualified, on the one hand, as a relation of an ontological priority of the quality over the qualified and, on the other hand, as a relation of ontological simultaneity. It has been shown in the third part of the study that it is possible to reconcile these apparently conflicting assumptions in Simplicius by means of two disambiguations: first, the differentiation of ontological priority into existential priority and essential priority and, second, the distinction between qualified qua single instantiation of the corresponding quality and qualified qua sum of all instantiations of the corresponding quality. While these investigations of the relation between quality and the qualified conducted in the first two chapters of the third part of the study involve the understanding of the qualified as an instantiation of the corresponding quality, the analyses of the third and fourth chapter involve the understanding of the qualified as a qualified substance. If the qualified is understood as a qualified substance, an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified evokes several questions. The third chapter deals with the following two: first, how can differences among participants of the same quality be explained, i.e. what is the reason for gradual differences of participation or instantiations and, second, how can it be explained that a particular quality is instantiated in one substance rather than in another substance, i.e. what is the condition for participation as such. In order to answer these questions, the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης becomes crucial. This notion had already been introduced in the second part of the study in the course of an analysis of the more and the less in the category of quality. As stated, Simplicius connects this question with the idea that participation involves latitude. The latitude of participation, in turn, is in accordance with the participant’s ἐπιτηδειότης to receive the information from that in which it participates. The use of the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in the context of the analysis of the relation between quality and qualified has its roots in the use of ἐπιτηδειότης in the theory of participation established by Simplicius’ predecessors, where it frequently occurs as an aspect of the explanation of the relation between μετεχόμενον and μετέχον. However, the question whether ἐπιτηδειότης is a technical term in late Antiquity or a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις has been a subject of debate among scholars. Since also Simplicius uses these two terms, especially in his comments on the category of quality, I tried to clarify Simplicius’ understanding of ἐπιτηδειότης and of the relation between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his comments on quality. The analysis in the third chapter suggested that Simplicius distinguishes between a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις and a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that cannot be associated with the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις. Ἐπιτηδειότης in the latter sense is simpler, precedes δύναμις and appears to be a simple propensity of the participant for something more complete than itself, rooted in higher principles within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The difficulty that this analysis faced was the fact that, although it was suggested by Simplicius’ remarks, Simplicius himself does not explicitly distinguish between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his comments on the category of quality. As I argued, however, this fact could be interpreted again as a strategy to accommodate and harmonize the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian theory. The fourth and last chapter deals with another important question that arises in the framework of an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified qua qualified substance. Based on the possibility to distinguish between attributes that always belong to their subjects and are even completive or essential to their subject and attributes that are adventitious to their subject, the question of the categorial status of essential qualities arises. While the classification of adventitious attributes as accidents appears to be more or less unproblematic, the integration of completive attributes into Aristotle’s categorial scheme poses a problem. The answer to this question builds on the results of the previous analyses and eventually leads to the attempt to present a comprehensive answer to the initial question of the categorial status and the ontological explanation of qualities (both essential and adventitious qualities) in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. By means of an analysis of different passages on, or involving, essential qualities and a comparison with Simplicius’ conception of differentiae, I argued against the claim held by scholars that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as substances. According to the interpretation presented in the fourth chapter, Simplicius ascribes both a substantial and a qualitative aspect to essential qualities and differentiae. Depending on the context, he stresses the one or the other aspect. Simplicius, a proponent of the idea that Aristotle’s categorial scheme is complete and exhaustive, does not appear to think that these entities would not fit into Aristotle’s scheme. Rather, Simplicius explains their double structure by their participation in both substance and quality. He does not discuss or even problematize the fact that such a conception would challenge Aristotle’s scheme. Interestingly, Simplicius’ assumption that these entities are substantial but no substances also suggests that he distinguishes between that which is substantial and that which is a substance. Although Simplicius undoubtedly conceives of those qualities as being substantial, he appears to distinguish them from substances and restricts the latter to matter, form and the matter-form compound. By means of a recourse to Proclus’ remarks in his Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, I tried to show that such a distinction including essential qualities can already be found among Simplicius’ predecessors. Moreover, I tried to present an ontological explanation of qualities that takes Simplicius’ remarks on both essential and adventitious qualities into account. I argued that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as belonging to the immanent form which sends forth these qualities as soon as it unfolds itself in body. These qualities thus naturally inhere in the subject and cannot be separated without the corruption of the subject. Adventitious qualities are immanent logoi which do not belong to the form. They enter the subject after the compounding of matter and form; or in other words, the participation in these logoi is posterior to the constitution of the subject. In this way, they come in from outside and can be separated without the corruption of the subject. However, they do not appear to operate independently from the immanent form. The immanent form prefigures the subject, limits its possibilities in participation and determines its capacities for receiving contraries. It thereby establishes the conditions for these logoi to operate. As it has been pointed out, Simplicius does not transfer the distinction between essential and adventitious to the level of natural logoi and, consequently, does not make the logos of each quality twofold. On the contrary, he restricts this distinction to the realm of bodies and can thus maintain the assumption that the logos of each quality is one. This account is an attempt to provide a consistent explanation of qualities in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. However, it leaves a number of questions open for further research. One group of questions concerns the relation between essential qualities and differentiae. As stated, Simplicius does not only treat them similarly, he also often uses the same examples for essential qualities and differentiae. This situation is probably the reason why scholars on Simplicius have discussed these topics together (with different results though). However, if both differentiae and essential qualities are substantial and belong to the form but are not substances, the question arises how their differences can be explained. One of these differences is that, according to Simplicius, an essential quality, such as the whiteness of snow, can admit of a more and a less, whereas no differentia admits of a more and a less. A related question regarding differentiae is the following: if the differentiae are intermediates and participate in both substance and quality, why is there actually no differentia that admits of a more and a less? Is there, eventually, perhaps a distinction or hierarchy among essential attributes? On the basis of the analysis of essential and adventitious qualities, Simplicius’ conception of immanent forms is a topic that is highly interesting and would deserve further investigation. According to the analysis conducted in the last chapter, both essential qualities and adventitious qualities depend on immanent forms. The former do so because they belong to this form, the latter because the immanent form prefigures the subject and thus determines what qualities it can receive and to what extent it can receive them. In connection with this topic, it would also be interesting to investigate the question as to what there are natural logoi of. Another highly interesting topic linked to the research conducted in this study would be the comparison of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories with the presentation of material properties in the framework of a discussion of Plato’s geometric atomism included in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus and Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo. Such a comparison could be very interesting because it may contribute to the clarification of strategies that some Neoplatonists have adopted in order to deal with the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories about elemental constitution (including elemental properties) and may thus contribute to our understanding of Neoplatonic natural philosophy in general. Although I think that this comparison is highly interesting, I have focused in this study on Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. I hope that the preceding pages have shown that this explanation was worth a study of its own. [conclusion, pp. 215-223]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fn4WmTxOpxJfuVO

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1395","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1395,"authors_free":[{"id":2171,"entry_id":1395,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"The aim of this study was to analyze Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualitative properties in his \r\nCommentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. In this commentary, Simplicius discusses qualities in \r\nthe framework of Aristotle\u2019s categorial scheme and neither explicitly emphasizes the topic nor \r\nparticularly problematizes it. In order to analyze Simplicius\u2019 conception of quality, it was thus \r\nnecessary to compile and systematize his remarks on qualities or remarks that might be \r\nrelevant for an explanation of qualities from different places in the text. I grouped the \r\ndifferent information in three main parts, each consisting of two to four chapters. The first \r\npart set out to provide some general information on Simplicius, his Commentary on \r\nAristotle\u2019s Categories and the notion of quality in Aristotle in order to pave the way for an \r\nanalysis of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. \r\nThe second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities. \r\nWhile the second part remained to a large extent within the terminological framework of the \r\nCategories, the third part mainly drew on Neoplatonic theorems and focused on the \r\nontological explanation of qualities within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. In what \r\nfollows, I will summarize the results of the three main parts of the study and present \r\ndifficulties that the study faced, shortcomings that the study includes and questions that the \r\nstudy evokes. \r\nThe first part of the study elaborated on Simplicius\u2019 exegesis and the place of his commentary \r\nin the Neoplatonic commentary tradition on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Its aim was to provide the \r\nreader with the textual and theoretical context in and with which Simplicius works. Hence, it \r\nfocused in part on Simplicius as a member of the Neoplatonic school and his commentary as a \r\npart and witness of an exegetical tradition on Aristotle\u2019s Categories that began centuries \r\nbefore Simplicius. However, Simplicius\u2019 philosophical background, his sources and his \r\npresuppositions regarding Aristotle\u2019s Categories are relevant for a study of his conception of \r\nqualities because they influence his treatment of the topic. Although Simplicius appears to \r\nhave a keen interest in Aristotle\u2019s text, he interprets it against the background of his own \r\nNeoplatonic views. As it has been pointed out in the first part of the study, there is the \r\ndifficulty that Simplicius does not spell out or elaborate on Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrine \r\nin his commentary. Since the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework represents the theoretical \r\nframework in and with which Simplicius works, an understanding of its principles is necessary for an understanding of Simplicius\u2019 discussions. In order to provide an explanation of Neoplatonic metaphysical assumptions when necessary, I thus relied on information that can be found in Neoplatonic authors prior to Simplicius. This way of proceeding implies the problematic assumption that Simplicius does not deviate from these authors regarding the understanding of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. This assumption is problematic because it may obscure Simplicius\u2019 actual position if it differs. At least on the basis of Simplicius\u2019 text, there is no indication that Simplicius\u2019 conception of general elements of Neoplatonic metaphysics would differ from that of his predecessors. \r\nIt has been pointed out that Simplicius frequently refers to predecessors and even states explicitly that, in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, he follows the commentaries by Porphyry and Iamblichus in their interpretation of the Categories. Simplicius\u2019 commentaries are well known for the richness of references to and presentations of views held by \r\npredecessors. He has often been used as a source of information on other philosophers for \r\nworks that are no longer extant otherwise. His Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories is no \r\nexception; it is rich in references to philosophers belonging not only to the Neoplatonic tradition but also to other philosophical traditions, such as Stoicism or the Peripatetic school. The present study does not elaborate on references to members of other philosophical schools. A lot could have been said about Simplicius\u2019 presentation and discussion of views held by these philosophers. It may even be fruitful to examine in detail Simplicius\u2019 treatment and use of views held by philosophers working in the Stoic or Peripatetic tradition. Such \r\ninvestigations would also be interesting for our understanding of the historical development of \r\ncertain concepts. The omission thus requires an explanation. The explanation is, admittedly, \r\nof a rather pragmatic nature. A discussion of all the views that Simplicius mentions would \r\nhave exceeded the scope of this study. A selection always requires good reasons. Apart from \r\nPorphyry and Iamblichus, I could not justify in a consistent manner, with regard to the topic \r\nof this study, why I would focus on the one view more than on the other. Hence, although I \r\nthink that it would be interesting to investigate the possible influences of, for example, \r\nAlexander of Aphrodisias or of Stoic views on Simplicius, I did not conduct such investigations in this study. They may be topics for possible future projects. As stated, the main sources for his commentary are, according to Simplicius himself, \r\nPorphyry\u2019s long commentary on the Categories and, even to a bigger extent, Iamblichus\u2019 \r\ncommentary. The unfortunate fact that the two commentaries are no longer extant and \r\nSimplicius\u2019 modest self-presentation as a commentator make it difficult to assess the \r\nproportion between copying or paraphrasing his sources and presenting own ideas in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentary. It has also been pointed out that some, if not all, presuppositions of \r\nSimplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories stem from his main source Iamblichus. Simplicius\u2019 core presuppositions are his interpretation of the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 as a synthesis of words, beings and notions, his assumption that the main source of the Categories is the Pseudo-Pythagorean treatise On the Universal Formulae by Pseudo-Archytas, his conviction that Aristotle uses obscurity on purpose in his writings and the assumption that there is a harmony between Aristotle and Plato on the majority of points. As it has been shown in the course of the study, in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Simplicius appears to extend the idea of a harmony also to Porphyry and Iamblichus. \r\nBesides the attempt to provide the philosophical background of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, to contextualize it within the commentary tradition on the Categories, and to introduce Simplicius\u2019 main sources and core presuppositions in this commentary, the first part also includes an overview of the accounts of quality that can be found in Aristotle\u2019s works. This overview is meant to show that Aristotle approaches qualities from different perspectives in his works. I distinguished between two main approaches: 1. the explanation of qualities from \r\na logical-metaphysical perspective, included, for example, in Aristotle\u2019s Categories and Metaphysics, and 2. the explanation of qualities from the perspective of natural philosophy, \r\nincluded, for example, in Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione. As the \r\nanalyses especially in part three suggested, Simplicius appears not only to be well acquainted \r\nwith the explanations of qualities that Aristotle presents elsewhere, he also integrates elements \r\nof these explanations into his discussion of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nCategories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of quality. As stated, in order to analyze Simplicius\u2019 conception of quality, it was necessary to compile \r\nand systematize relevant remarks from different places in the text. This way of proceeding \r\nrequires caution, as it runs the risk of neglecting the context of the relevant individual \r\npassages. Given that Simplicius works closely and in sequence with Aristotle\u2019s text and \r\ndiscusses aspects of the text within the framework of the lemmata on which he comments, a \r\nconsideration of the context, however, is as important as a thorough analysis of the relevant \r\npassages themselves. The present study tried to accommodate both methodological strategies. \r\nIt thereby runs another risk common to compromises, namely to fail to do both a thorough investigation of individual passages and a consideration of the context properly. I gave priority to the thought that both methodological strategies are indispensable for an \r\nunderstanding of Simplicius\u2019 conception of qualities. The second part aimed at providing a categorial analysis of quality. It focused on quality as one of the ten Aristotelian categories and thus dealt with the regulations and characteristics that apply to quality qua category. Aristotle draws a distinction between the category of substance and the other nine categories in that he ascribes an ontological priority to the former. As suggested by Aristotle\u2019s fourfold division of \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 in the second chapter of the Categories but not explicitly articulated with regard to any of the nine non-substantial \r\ncategories, Simplicius transposes the intracategorial structure and regulations spelled out for the category of substance onto the category of quality. The category of quality thus comprises \r\ngenera and species of quality and their individual instantiations. Moreover, the genera of \r\nquality are synonymously predicated of their species which in turn are synonymously \r\npredicated of their instantiations. According to the rule of transitivity, which equally applies, \r\nthe genera of quality are consequently also synonymously predicated of the instantiations. \r\nWhile the intracategorial relation, i.e. the relation between genera and species and \r\ninstantiations of quality, is a relation of unilinear synonymous predication, the intercategorial \r\nrelation, i.e. the relation between a quality and a substance, is a relation of homonymous \r\npredication. Although Aristotle does not explicitly mention all these features of quality in his \r\nCategories, they are compatible with his text. Aristotle\u2019s text leaves quite a lot of room for \r\ninterpretation which not only facilitates the transposition of regulations and structural \r\nelements within the categorial theory itself but also enables the integration of, or \r\nharmonization with, (Neo)Platonic theoretical elements. Simplicius\u2019 harmonizing tendency as \r\nan interpretative strategy becomes most apparent in the analyses conducted in the second part \r\nof this study. It is suggested by Simplicius\u2019 way of presenting predication and participation as \r\ntwo different but non-conflicting theories used to explain the relation among entities in the \r\nnatural realm, by his interpretation of the predicate as an immanent universal, by his \r\nexplanation of the \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of quality against the background of likeness and unlikeness and by \r\nhis use of the idea of a latitude of participation in his discussion of the question whether the \r\ncategory of quality admits of a more and a less. \r\nThe discussions in the second part have also shown that some problems or questions that \r\nscholars have raised with regard to Aristotle\u2019s text appeared to be unproblematic for \r\nSimplicius, such as the compatibility of the categorial theory with hylomorphism or the \r\ninterpretation of homonymy as comprehensive homonymy. It is worth noting that Simplicius \r\ndisplays a charitable interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s text with regard to these questions. Other \r\ntopics discussed in Aristotelian scholarship are more problematic for Simplicius, especially \r\nthose which are in apparent conflict with Platonic doctrine. He explicitly addresses the \r\napparent primacy of individual substances in the Categories and tries at length to reconcile it \r\nwith the Platonic view that the forms are prior to the individuals. He does not openly address \r\n219 \r\n \r\nbut implicitly deviates from the assumption held by many Aristotelian scholars that \r\nsynonymous predication yields essential predication. He argues that, although genera, species and differentiae are all synonymously predicated of that which is beneath them, only genera and species are also essentially predicated of that which is beneath them whereas the \r\ndifferentiae are not essentially but qualitatively predicated of that which is beneath them. It \r\nalso becomes apparent in the second part that the study of quality in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary \r\non Aristotle\u2019s Categories includes an analysis of the relation between quality and the \r\nqualified. The differentiation of the possible meanings of the qualified represents the basis, or \r\npreparatory work, for such an analysis. \r\nThe third part of the study exceeds to some extent the categorial framework and expands on \r\nthe Neoplatonic elements of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of quality and its relation to the \r\nqualified. In this regard, it also elaborates on certain notions that have already been introduced \r\nin the second part but become most relevant in the context of an analysis of the relation \r\nbetween quality and the qualified within a Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The notion \r\nof participation is one of them. Simplicius does not only present participation, like predication, as a model to explain the relation between intracategorial entities in his \r\nomments on chapter five but he also explicitly applies it to the entities subsumed under the \r\ncategory of quality, when he refers to the quality as \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and to the qualified as \r\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. Simplicius associates quality and the qualified with these two elements of the \r\nNeoplatonic triad of participation and analogically applies the characteristics of those elements (and their relation to each other) to quality and the qualified (and their relation to \r\neach other). For an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified, it was thus \r\nhelpful to have a closer look at the structure of the triad of participation, and especially at its \r\nelements, their characteristics and their relations to each other. The association of quality with \r\nthe \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and of the qualified with the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, however, transfers a problem to the \r\ncategory of quality that Simplicius, like other Neoplatonists, mainly discusses in the course of \r\nhis comments on the category of substance: the question of ontological dependence and, \r\nparticularly, whether the ontological relation between quality and the qualified is a relation of \r\nontological priority and posteriority or of ontological simultaneity. Simplicius describes \r\nquality as that which is participated in by the qualified, as that which is in the qualified and of \r\nwhich its being and its being participated in is one. The qualified in turn participates in quality \r\nand receives its being qualified from the quality. Simplicius thus appears to describe the \r\nrelation between quality and the qualified, on the one hand, as a relation of an ontological \r\npriority of the quality over the qualified and, on the other hand, as a relation of ontological simultaneity. It has been shown in the third part of the study that it is possible to reconcile \r\nthese apparently conflicting assumptions in Simplicius by means of two disambiguations: \r\nfirst, the differentiation of ontological priority into existential priority and essential priority \r\nand, second, the distinction between qualified qua single instantiation of the corresponding \r\nquality and qualified qua sum of all instantiations of the corresponding quality. While these investigations of the relation between quality and the qualified conducted in the first two \r\nchapters of the third part of the study involve the understanding of the qualified as an \r\ninstantiation of the corresponding quality, the analyses of the third and fourth chapter involve \r\nthe understanding of the qualified as a qualified substance. If the qualified is understood as a qualified substance, an analysis of the relation between \r\nquality and the qualified evokes several questions. The third chapter deals with the following \r\ntwo: first, how can differences among participants of the same quality be explained, i.e. what \r\nis the reason for gradual differences of participation or instantiations and, second, how can it be explained that a particular quality is instantiated in one substance rather than in another substance, i.e. what is the condition for participation as such. In order to answer these \r\nquestions, the notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 becomes crucial. This notion had already been \r\nintroduced in the second part of the study in the course of an analysis of the more and the less \r\nin the category of quality. As stated, Simplicius connects this question with the idea that \r\nparticipation involves latitude. The latitude of participation, in turn, is in accordance with the \r\nparticipant\u2019s \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 to receive the information from that in which it participates. The use of the notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the context of the analysis of the relation between quality \r\nand qualified has its roots in the use of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the theory of participation established by Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, where it frequently occurs as an aspect of the explanation of the \r\nrelation between \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. However, the question whether \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is \r\na technical term in late Antiquity or a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \r\nhas been a subject of debate among scholars. Since also Simplicius uses these two terms, \r\nespecially in his comments on the category of quality, I tried to clarify Simplicius\u2019 understanding of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and of the relation between \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 in his \r\ncomments on quality. The analysis in the third chapter suggested that Simplicius distinguishes \r\nbetween a sense of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 that can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of \r\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 and a sense of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 that cannot be associated with the Aristotelian notion of \r\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the latter sense is simpler, precedes \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 and appears to be a \r\nsimple propensity of the participant for something more complete than itself, rooted in higher principles within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The difficulty that this analysis \r\nfaced was the fact that, although it was suggested by Simplicius\u2019 remarks, Simplicius himself \r\ndoes not explicitly distinguish between \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 in his comments on the category of quality. As I argued, however, this fact could be interpreted again as a strategy to \r\naccommodate and harmonize the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian theory. The fourth and last chapter deals with another important question that arises in the framework \r\nof an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified qua qualified substance. Based \r\non the possibility to distinguish between attributes that always belong to their subjects and are \r\neven completive or essential to their subject and attributes that are adventitious to their \r\nsubject, the question of the categorial status of essential qualities arises. While the \r\nclassification of adventitious attributes as accidents appears to be more or less unproblematic, the integration of completive attributes into Aristotle\u2019s categorial scheme poses a problem. \r\nThe answer to this question builds on the results of the previous analyses and eventually leads \r\nto the attempt to present a comprehensive answer to the initial question of the categorial status \r\nand the ontological explanation of qualities (both essential and adventitious qualities) in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. \r\nBy means of an analysis of different passages on, or involving, essential qualities and a \r\ncomparison with Simplicius\u2019 conception of differentiae, I argued against the claim held by \r\nscholars that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as substances. According to the \r\ninterpretation presented in the fourth chapter, Simplicius ascribes both a substantial and a \r\nqualitative aspect to essential qualities and differentiae. Depending on the context, he stresses \r\nthe one or the other aspect. Simplicius, a proponent of the idea that Aristotle\u2019s categorial \r\nscheme is complete and exhaustive, does not appear to think that these entities would not fit \r\ninto Aristotle\u2019s scheme. Rather, Simplicius explains their double structure by their participation in both substance and quality. He does not discuss or even problematize the fact that such a conception would challenge Aristotle\u2019s scheme. Interestingly, Simplicius\u2019 assumption that these entities are substantial but no substances also suggests that he distinguishes between that which is substantial and that which is a substance. Although \r\nSimplicius undoubtedly conceives of those qualities as being substantial, he appears to \r\ndistinguish them from substances and restricts the latter to matter, form and the matter-form \r\ncompound. By means of a recourse to Proclus\u2019 remarks in his Commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus, I tried to show that such a distinction including essential qualities can already be \r\nfound among Simplicius\u2019 predecessors. Moreover, I tried to present an ontological explanation of qualities that takes Simplicius\u2019 remarks on both essential and adventitious qualities into account. I argued that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as belonging to \r\nthe immanent form which sends forth these qualities as soon as it unfolds itself in body. These \r\nqualities thus naturally inhere in the subject and cannot be separated without the corruption of \r\nthe subject. Adventitious qualities are immanent logoi which do not belong to the form. They \r\nenter the subject after the compounding of matter and form; or in other words, the participation in these logoi is posterior to the constitution of the subject. In this way, they \r\ncome in from outside and can be separated without the corruption of the subject. However, \r\nthey do not appear to operate independently from the immanent form. The immanent form \r\nprefigures the subject, limits its possibilities in participation and determines its capacities for \r\nreceiving contraries. It thereby establishes the conditions for these logoi to operate. As it has \r\nbeen pointed out, Simplicius does not transfer the distinction between essential and adventitious to the level of natural logoi and, consequently, does not make the logos of each \r\nquality twofold. On the contrary, he restricts this distinction to the realm of bodies and can \r\nthus maintain the assumption that the logos of each quality is one. This account is an attempt to provide a consistent explanation of qualities in Simplicius\u2019 \r\nCommentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. However, it leaves a number of questions open for \r\nfurther research. One group of questions concerns the relation between essential qualities and \r\ndifferentiae. As stated, Simplicius does not only treat them similarly, he also often uses the \r\nsame examples for essential qualities and differentiae. This situation is probably the reason why scholars on Simplicius have discussed these topics together (with different results \r\nthough). However, if both differentiae and essential qualities are substantial and belong to the \r\nform but are not substances, the question arises how their differences can be explained. One \r\nof these differences is that, according to Simplicius, an essential quality, such as the whiteness \r\nof snow, can admit of a more and a less, whereas no differentia admits of a more and a less. A \r\nrelated question regarding differentiae is the following: if the differentiae are intermediates \r\nand participate in both substance and quality, why is there actually no differentia that admits \r\nof a more and a less? Is there, eventually, perhaps a distinction or hierarchy among essential \r\nattributes? On the basis of the analysis of essential and adventitious qualities, Simplicius\u2019 \r\nconception of immanent forms is a topic that is highly interesting and would deserve further \r\ninvestigation. According to the analysis conducted in the last chapter, both essential qualities \r\nand adventitious qualities depend on immanent forms. The former do so because they belong \r\nto this form, the latter because the immanent form prefigures the subject and thus determines \r\nwhat qualities it can receive and to what extent it can receive them. In connection with this \r\ntopic, it would also be interesting to investigate the question as to what there are natural logoi of. Another highly interesting topic linked to the research conducted in this study would be \r\nthe comparison of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nCategories with the presentation of material properties in the framework of a discussion of \r\nPlato\u2019s geometric atomism included in Proclus\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus and Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo. Such a comparison could be very interesting because it may contribute to the clarification of strategies that some Neoplatonists \r\nhave adopted in order to deal with the differences between Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s theories about elemental constitution (including elemental properties) and may thus contribute to our understanding of Neoplatonic natural philosophy in general. Although I think that this \r\ncomparison is highly interesting, I have focused in this study on Simplicius\u2019 explanation of \r\nqualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. I hope that the preceding pages have shown that this explanation was worth a study of its own. [conclusion, pp. 215-223]","btype":1,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fn4WmTxOpxJfuVO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1395,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"KU Leuven, Humanities and Social Sciences Group, Institute of Philosophy","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Priskian von Lydien (›Simplikios‹): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgewählt, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Matthias Perkams, 2018
By: Simplicius, Perkams, Matthias (Ed.), Busche, Hubertus (Ed.), Perkams, Matthias

Title	Priskian von Lydien (›Simplikios‹): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgewählt, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Matthias Perkams
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2018
Published in	Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist
Pages	547-675
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius , Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)	Perkams, Matthias , Busche, Hubertus
Translator(s)	Perkams, Matthias(Perkams, Matthias) ,

Der De-anima-Kommentar, der hier dem Lyder Priskian zugeschrieben wird, ist eine der philosophisch anspruchsvollsten und elaboriertesten Darstellungen des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes. Originell und von systematischem Interesse sind besonders zwei Lehren: Eine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, nämlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und Überleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen. Die zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles’ Lehre vom aktiven Geist. Diese äußerst knappe Charakterisierung der Stärken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift lässt seine Schwächen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung. Priskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, „die Übereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben“; anders gesagt, erklärt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst für die Wahrheit hält. Das wichtigste Kriterium für diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich. Konsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen häufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten könnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erklärt. Trotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenmächtig sind, darf man nicht übersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalität im neuplatonischen Kontext ausmachen, tief von aristotelischer Terminologie durchdrungen und von dem Versuch geleitet sind, die Gedanken des Stagiriten vor dem Hintergrund der Fragen seiner eigenen Zeit nachzudenken. Insofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel für einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, für den Aristoteles nicht nur „Platons bester Ausleger“ ist, sondern auch eine „weitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail“ liefert, „was dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erklärte“. Auf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was für ihn Anlass zu einer ausführlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548]

Online Resources

Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics, 2018
By: Parsons, Bethany, Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Layne, Danielle, A. (Ed.)

Title	Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Pages	227-242
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Parsons, Bethany
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Layne, Danielle, A.
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RBkbZJgg5JiRP2K

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1488","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1488,"authors_free":[{"id":2576,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":552,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Parsons, Bethany","free_first_name":"Bethany","free_last_name":"Parsons","norm_person":{"id":552,"first_name":"Bethany","last_name":"Parsons","full_name":"Parsons, Bethany","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2577,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2578,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle, A.","free_first_name":"Danielle, A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RBkbZJgg5JiRP2K","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":552,"full_name":"Parsons, Bethany","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1488,"section_of":1489,"pages":"227-242","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1489,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0kL235IRMmorwaZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1489,"pubplace":"Gloucestershire","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 2018
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Layne, Danielle, A. (Ed.)

Title	Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2018
Publication Place	Gloucestershire
Publisher	Prometheus Trust
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Layne, Danielle, A.
Translator(s)

This anthology of 16 essays by scholars from around the world is published in association with the ISNS: it contains many of the papers presented in their 2016 annual conference. Contents: The Significance of Initiation Rituals in Plato’s Meno – Michael Romero Plato’s Timaean Psychology – John Finamore The Creative Thinker: A New Reading of Numenius fr. 16.10-12 – Joshua Langseth First Philosophy, Abstract Objects, and Divine Aseity: Aristotle and Plotinus – Robert M. Berchman Plotinus on philia and its Empedoclean origin – Giannis Stamatellos In What Sense Does the One Exist? Existence and Hypostasis in Plotinus – Michael Wiitala and Paul DiRado A Double-Edged Sword: Porphyry on the Perils and Profits of Demonological Inquiry – Seamus O’Neill Alienation and Divinization: Iamblichus’ Theurgic Vision – Gregory Shaw Iamblichus’ method for creating Theurgic Sacrifice – Sam Webster The Understanding of Time and Eternity in the polemic between Eunomius, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa – Tomasz Stępień Tension in the soul: A Stoic/Platonic concept in Plutarch, Proclus, and Simplicius – Marilynn Lawrence Peritrope in Damascius as the Apparatus of Speculative Ontology – Tyler Tritten Mysticism, Apocalypticism, and Platonism – Ilaria Ramelli Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics – Bethany Parsons From Embryo to Saint: a Thomist Account of Being Human – Melissa Rovig Vanden Bout From the Neoplatonizing Christian Gnosticism of Philip K. Dick to the Neoplatonizing Hermetic Gnosticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson – Jay Bregman [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aEX0vcsHkkXIXix

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1489","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1489,"authors_free":[{"id":2579,"entry_id":1489,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2580,"entry_id":1489,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle, A.","free_first_name":"Danielle, A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","main_title":{"title":"Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies"},"abstract":"This anthology of 16 essays by scholars from around the world is published in association with the ISNS: it contains many of the papers presented in their 2016 annual conference. Contents:\r\n\r\nThe Significance of Initiation Rituals in Plato\u2019s Meno \u2013 Michael Romero\r\n\r\nPlato\u2019s Timaean Psychology \u2013 John Finamore\r\n\r\nThe Creative Thinker: A New Reading of Numenius fr. 16.10-12 \u2013 Joshua Langseth\r\n\r\nFirst Philosophy, Abstract Objects, and Divine Aseity: Aristotle and Plotinus \u2013 Robert M. Berchman\r\n\r\nPlotinus on philia and its Empedoclean origin \u2013 Giannis Stamatellos\r\n\r\nIn What Sense Does the One Exist? Existence and Hypostasis in Plotinus \u2013 Michael Wiitala and Paul DiRado\r\n\r\nA Double-Edged Sword: Porphyry on the Perils and Profits of Demonological Inquiry \u2013 Seamus O\u2019Neill\r\n\r\nAlienation and Divinization: Iamblichus\u2019 Theurgic Vision \u2013 Gregory Shaw\r\n\r\nIamblichus\u2019 method for creating Theurgic Sacrifice \u2013 Sam Webster\r\n\r\nThe Understanding of Time and Eternity in the polemic between Eunomius, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa \u2013 Tomasz St\u0119pie\u0144\r\n\r\nTension in the soul: A Stoic\/Platonic concept in Plutarch, Proclus, and Simplicius \u2013 Marilynn Lawrence\r\n\r\nPeritrope in Damascius as the Apparatus of Speculative Ontology \u2013 Tyler Tritten\r\n\r\nMysticism, Apocalypticism, and Platonism \u2013 Ilaria Ramelli\r\n\r\nPhilosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics \u2013 Bethany Parsons\r\n\r\nFrom Embryo to Saint: a Thomist Account of Being Human \u2013 Melissa Rovig Vanden Bout\r\n\r\nFrom the Neoplatonizing Christian Gnosticism of Philip K. Dick to the Neoplatonizing Hermetic Gnosticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson \u2013 Jay Bregman\r\n[official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aEX0vcsHkkXIXix","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1489,"pubplace":"Gloucestershire","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism, 2018
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo

Title	Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2018
Journal	Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval
Volume	43
Pages	13-39
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ lost commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/duFoYG09YhVIWUx

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/duFoYG09YhVIWUx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":[2018]}

Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education, 2018
By: Griffin, Michael, Benedikt Strobel (Ed.)

Title	Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	127-157
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael
Editor(s)	Benedikt Strobel
Translator(s)

This paper sets out to explore the Sitz im Leben of late ancient philosophical pedagogy and research from a common vantage point: the capacity of a good teacher—or a canonical text, read with a good teacher as ἐξηγητής—to reshape and correct the elementary concepts or ἔννοιαι of the student or philosopher. (I) I begin with a brief reflection on the intersection of pedagogical practice and inquiry in antiquity, then (II) briefly explore the theme of how common notions or ἔννοιαι might be shaped and reshaped by the philosopher who comes into contact with the "great texts" of the past or with a good teacher, in Plotinus and Simplicius, and (III) conclude by considering the historical background of Simplicius’ attitude to past philosophers, and to what extent it might be considered as informed by earlier Aristotelian or Stoic practices. I focus on the interface between philosophical education and research in the commentator Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 490–c. 560 CE). Simplicius is well known as an interpreter (ἐξηγητής) of the formative texts of Hellenic philosophy (a function whose qualifications he outlines at In Cat. 7, 23–29), and he regards the philosophical commentary as an important vehicle for what we might regard as "research" or inquiry into an array of subjects. Simplicius also treats commentary as a useful tool for pedagogy. A student who reads a book like Epictetus’ Handbook may advance in virtue (Simp., In Epict. pr. 87–90); Simplicius’ interpretation is a useful guide, a facilitator on the way. In both these areas—discovery and pedagogy—I try to outline a common psychological theory underlying the function attributed to the commentator: A pupil who engages in dialectic with a teacher, or with the "greats" of the past, may recover the natural, undistorted concepts (ἔννοιαι) that were her birthright before they were distorted by the fall of the soul and the rattle and hum of our quotidian experience (illustrated by Simplicius in an evocative passage at In Cat. 12, 10–13, 4). [introduction p. 127-128]

Online Resources

Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?, 2018
By: Karamanolis, George, Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1546","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1546,"authors_free":[{"id":2702,"entry_id":1546,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":null},{"id":2812,"entry_id":1546,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Benedikt Strobel","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education","main_title":{"title":"Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education"},"abstract":"This paper sets out to explore the Sitz im Leben of late ancient philosophical pedagogy and research from a common vantage point: the capacity of a good teacher\u2014or a canonical text, read with a good teacher as \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2\u2014to reshape and correct the elementary concepts or \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 of the student or philosopher.\r\n\r\n(I) I begin with a brief reflection on the intersection of pedagogical practice and inquiry in antiquity, then (II) briefly explore the theme of how common notions or \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 might be shaped and reshaped by the philosopher who comes into contact with the \"great texts\" of the past or with a good teacher, in Plotinus and Simplicius, and (III) conclude by considering the historical background of Simplicius\u2019 attitude to past philosophers, and to what extent it might be considered as informed by earlier Aristotelian or Stoic practices.\r\n\r\nI focus on the interface between philosophical education and research in the commentator Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 490\u2013c. 560 CE). Simplicius is well known as an interpreter (\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2) of the formative texts of Hellenic philosophy (a function whose qualifications he outlines at In Cat. 7, 23\u201329), and he regards the philosophical commentary as an important vehicle for what we might regard as \"research\" or inquiry into an array of subjects. Simplicius also treats commentary as a useful tool for pedagogy. A student who reads a book like Epictetus\u2019 Handbook may advance in virtue (Simp., In Epict. pr. 87\u201390); Simplicius\u2019 interpretation is a useful guide, a facilitator on the way.\r\n\r\nIn both these areas\u2014discovery and pedagogy\u2014I try to outline a common psychological theory underlying the function attributed to the commentator: A pupil who engages in dialectic with a teacher, or with the \"greats\" of the past, may recover the natural, undistorted concepts (\u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9) that were her birthright before they were distorted by the fall of the soul and the rattle and hum of our quotidian experience (illustrated by Simplicius in an evocative passage at In Cat. 12, 10\u201313, 4). [introduction p. 127-128]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1546,"section_of":289,"pages":"127-157","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Title	Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	9-43
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

Let me summarize the argument of this paper. I have argued that Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle because he found these works to represent an elaboration on and a development of Plato’s philosophy. This is a development in the sense that Aristotle not only wrestles with philosophical issues that Plato first explored and does so in a manner and with a method inspired by Plato, but also that Aristotle often takes views similar to those of Plato. Porphyry does not deny that Aristotle often explores new territory; this is actually one reason why Porphyry devotes so much energy to studying and expounding Aristotle. What Porphyry does deny is that Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato’s philosophical views when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since these may be inspired by Plato or continue in some way Plato’s thinking on a given issue. This is not something that Porphyry argues explicitly in his commentaries. Rather, this view lies in the background and is implicit. I argued, though, that this view motivates Porphyry’s Aristotelian commentaries. That is, in his commentaries, Porphyry sets out to substantiate his views on philosophical topics like causation, cosmogony, matter, the nature of linguistic items and their relation to things, concept formation, and so on, with reference to texts of the Platonist tradition in philosophy. And this tradition, Porphyry thinks, crucially includes Aristotle as well. [conclusion p. 36-37]

Online Resources

Il male come "privazione". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia, 2017
By: Cardullo, R. Loredana

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1547","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1547,"authors_free":[{"id":2703,"entry_id":1547,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":null},{"id":2704,"entry_id":1547,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?","main_title":{"title":"Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?"},"abstract":"Let me summarize the argument of this paper. I have argued that Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle because he found these works to represent an elaboration on and a development of Plato\u2019s philosophy. This is a development in the sense that Aristotle not only wrestles with philosophical issues that Plato first explored and does so in a manner and with a method inspired by Plato, but also that Aristotle often takes views similar to those of Plato.\r\n\r\nPorphyry does not deny that Aristotle often explores new territory; this is actually one reason why Porphyry devotes so much energy to studying and expounding Aristotle. What Porphyry does deny is that Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato\u2019s philosophical views when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since these may be inspired by Plato or continue in some way Plato\u2019s thinking on a given issue.\r\n\r\nThis is not something that Porphyry argues explicitly in his commentaries. Rather, this view lies in the background and is implicit. I argued, though, that this view motivates Porphyry\u2019s Aristotelian commentaries. That is, in his commentaries, Porphyry sets out to substantiate his views on philosophical topics like causation, cosmogony, matter, the nature of linguistic items and their relation to things, concept formation, and so on, with reference to texts of the Platonist tradition in philosophy. And this tradition, Porphyry thinks, crucially includes Aristotle as well. [conclusion p. 36-37]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1547,"section_of":289,"pages":"9-43","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Title	Il male come "privazione". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Journal	PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA
Volume	1
Issue	8
Pages	391-408
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Cardullo, R. Loredana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ay8T0flgyMGienR

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1216","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1216,"authors_free":[{"id":1798,"entry_id":1216,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Il male come \"privazione\". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia","main_title":{"title":"Il male come \"privazione\". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia"},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato\u2019s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., \u201cparasitic\u201d or \u201ccollateral\u201d existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the \u201cprivative\u201d role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ay8T0flgyMGienR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1216,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"PEITHO \/ EXAMINA ANTIQUA","volume":"1","issue":"8","pages":"391-408"}},"sort":[2017]}

Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5, 2017
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Balansard, Anne (Ed.), Jaulin, Annick (Ed.)

Title	Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne
Pages	157-179
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)	Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick
Translator(s)

Nous résumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette étude. Alexandre souscrit à la thèse selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premières par rapport aux genres et aux espèces, mais cela n’implique à ses yeux aucune conséquence particulariste ou nominaliste. La définition des substances premières qu’Aristote présente dans les Catégories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s’appliquer à la forme séparée, c’est-à-dire aux Premiers Moteurs. L’existence de formes dans la matière ne contredit pas le critère de substantialité établi dans les Catégories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant être « dans un sujet » au sens des Catégories. À ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l’interprétation du enkorōs du traité permet à Alexandre de lire les Catégories de manière intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la sémantique de ce traité à son ontologie des natures immanentes. De notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour intégrer les Catégories à sa métaphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l’argument typique des Néoplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l’ontologie des Catégories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences phénoménales que reflète notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26). Bien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument à la position d’Alexandre : d’abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, suggère qu’Aristote, dans les Catégories, considère les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premières en tant qu’elles sont premières quoad nos. Une fois énoncée cette solution canonique et bien attestée depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s’attaque à Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premières par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32). Comme nous l’avons montré plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l’ontologie de la nature commune qu’Alexandre développait pour défendre sa position. Cependant, d’après ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premières dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu’Aristote établit dans les Catégories. Pour Alexandre, la lecture sémantique des Catégories n’avait donc pas pour but de détacher la doctrine des catégories de l’ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkorōs, Alexandre rattache de manière très étroite la doctrine des catégories à son ontologie essentialiste. Par ailleurs, la lecture sémantique du traité est parmi les éléments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Boéthos. Tous deux pensent que les Catégories portent sur les mots signifiants. La différence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la manière de concevoir la signification et dans les présupposés ontologiques qu’ils mettent en œuvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines sémantiques. [conclusion p. 176-177]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1270","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1270,"authors_free":[{"id":1861,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2045,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2046,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"},"abstract":"Nous r\u00e9sumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette \u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nAlexandre souscrit \u00e0 la th\u00e8se selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premi\u00e8res par rapport aux genres et aux esp\u00e8ces, mais cela n\u2019implique \u00e0 ses yeux aucune cons\u00e9quence particulariste ou nominaliste.\r\n\r\nLa d\u00e9finition des substances premi\u00e8res qu\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sente dans les Cat\u00e9gories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s\u2019appliquer \u00e0 la forme s\u00e9par\u00e9e, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire aux Premiers Moteurs.\r\n\r\nL\u2019existence de formes dans la mati\u00e8re ne contredit pas le crit\u00e8re de substantialit\u00e9 \u00e9tabli dans les Cat\u00e9gories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant \u00eatre \u00ab dans un sujet \u00bb au sens des Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du enkor\u014ds du trait\u00e9 permet \u00e0 Alexandre de lire les Cat\u00e9gories de mani\u00e8re intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la s\u00e9mantique de ce trait\u00e9 \u00e0 son ontologie des natures immanentes.\r\n\r\nDe notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour int\u00e9grer les Cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 sa m\u00e9taphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l\u2019argument typique des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l\u2019ontologie des Cat\u00e9gories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences ph\u00e9nom\u00e9nales que refl\u00e8te notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26).\r\n\r\nBien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument \u00e0 la position d\u2019Alexandre : d\u2019abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, sugg\u00e8re qu\u2019Aristote, dans les Cat\u00e9gories, consid\u00e8re les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premi\u00e8res en tant qu\u2019elles sont premi\u00e8res quoad nos.\r\n\r\nUne fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9e cette solution canonique et bien attest\u00e9e depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s\u2019attaque \u00e0 Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premi\u00e8res par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32).\r\n\r\nComme nous l\u2019avons montr\u00e9 plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l\u2019ontologie de la nature commune qu\u2019Alexandre d\u00e9veloppait pour d\u00e9fendre sa position. Cependant, d\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premi\u00e8res dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu\u2019Aristote \u00e9tablit dans les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nPour Alexandre, la lecture s\u00e9mantique des Cat\u00e9gories n\u2019avait donc pas pour but de d\u00e9tacher la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkor\u014ds, Alexandre rattache de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s \u00e9troite la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 son ontologie essentialiste.\r\n\r\nPar ailleurs, la lecture s\u00e9mantique du trait\u00e9 est parmi les \u00e9l\u00e9ments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Bo\u00e9thos. Tous deux pensent que les Cat\u00e9gories portent sur les mots signifiants. La diff\u00e9rence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la mani\u00e8re de concevoir la signification et dans les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s ontologiques qu\u2019ils mettent en \u0153uvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines s\u00e9mantiques.\r\n[conclusion p. 176-177]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1270,"section_of":273,"pages":"157-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario, 2017
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano

Title	Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	Symbolon
Volume	44
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Nell'opera di Simplicio l'esegesi non può essere separata dalla filosofia neoplatonica presa nel suo senso più ampio: ciò che egli ci propone non è soltanto una interpretazione complessiva del reale a partire da premesse platonico-aristoteliche, ma anche una Weltanschauung che è, o ritiene di essere, quella degli Elleni, e che trova la sua espressione più completa nell'accordo, µ , tra le filosofie di Aristotele, di Platone e dei Preplatonici e le antiche tradizioni teologiche. Questo libro di Ivan Adriano Licciardi, che completa felicemente la sua opera precedente, persegue del tutto opportunamente questa linea di ricerca e arricchisce la nostra visione su Simplicio filosofo, che cita e interpreta Parmenide. Questo libro mostra, attraverso una lettura minuziosa dei passi interessati del Commentario al De Caelo, che, secondo l'esegesi del filosofo neoplatonico, il vecchio filosofo di Elea - come altri filosofi che rappresentano la - anticipa Platone e, nella prospettiva della µ , anche Aristotele, nella misura in cui Parmenide concepì una ontologia dualista, che ingloba tanto il mondo dell'essere - uno quanto il mondo del divenire - molteplice, e nella quale la verità del mondo intelligibile conferisce uno statuto apparente al mondo sensibile'.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Emh7KiLhMWFS6CV

{"_index":"sire","_id":"255","_score":null,"_source":{"id":255,"authors_free":[{"id":324,"entry_id":255,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Critica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario","main_title":{"title":"Critica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario"},"abstract":"Nell'opera di Simplicio l'esegesi non pu\u00f2 essere separata dalla filosofia neoplatonica presa nel suo senso pi\u00f9 ampio: ci\u00f2 che egli ci propone non \u00e8 soltanto una interpretazione complessiva del reale a partire da premesse platonico-aristoteliche, ma anche una Weltanschauung che \u00e8, o ritiene di essere, quella degli Elleni, e che trova la sua espressione pi\u00f9 completa nell'accordo, \u00b5 , tra le filosofie di Aristotele, di Platone e dei Preplatonici e le antiche tradizioni teologiche. Questo libro di Ivan Adriano Licciardi, che completa felicemente la sua opera precedente, persegue del tutto opportunamente questa linea di ricerca e arricchisce la nostra visione su Simplicio filosofo, che cita e interpreta Parmenide. Questo libro mostra, attraverso una lettura minuziosa dei passi interessati del Commentario al De Caelo, che, secondo l'esegesi del filosofo neoplatonico, il vecchio filosofo di Elea - come altri filosofi che rappresentano la - anticipa Platone e, nella prospettiva della \u00b5 , anche Aristotele, nella misura in cui Parmenide concep\u00ec una ontologia dualista, che ingloba tanto il mondo dell'essere - uno quanto il mondo del divenire - molteplice, e nella quale la verit\u00e0 del mondo intelligibile conferisce uno statuto apparente al mondo sensibile'.","btype":1,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Emh7KiLhMWFS6CV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":255,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"Symbolon","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne, 2017
By: Balansard, Anne (Ed.), Jaulin, Annick (Ed.)

Title	Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2017
Publication Place	Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT
Publisher	Peeters
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick
Translator(s)

Les neuf études de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire à la Métaphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, écrit au tournant des IIe et IIIe siècles. Elles ont été suscitées par le colloque international "Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotélicienne", tenu à l'Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la réception est au cœur de ces études : réception de la Métaphysique par Alexandre, réception de son exégèse par la tradition ultérieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre établit la compréhension du texte d'Aristote à partir du IIIe siècle ; il servira de référence à toutes les interprétations ultérieures, qu'elles soient néoplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces études mettent en évidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie première et même éthique, établis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disputée est celle de l'usage des Catégories dans le commentaire à la Métaphysique. Les neuf études ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"273","_score":null,"_source":{"id":273,"authors_free":[{"id":2344,"entry_id":273,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2345,"entry_id":273,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne"},"abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","btype":4,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Pseudopythagorica Dorica. I trattati di argomento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attribuiti ad Archita e a Brotino, 2017
By: Ulacco, Angela,

Title	Pseudopythagorica Dorica. I trattati di argomento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attribuiti ad Archita e a Brotino
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Philosophie der Antike
Volume	41
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ulacco, Angela
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Ulacco, Angela() .

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1565","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1565,"authors_free":[{"id":2732,"entry_id":1565,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":null},{"id":2733,"entry_id":1565,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Pseudopythagorica Dorica. I trattati di argomento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attribuiti ad Archita e a Brotino","main_title":{"title":"Pseudopythagorica Dorica. I trattati di argomento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attribuiti ad Archita e a Brotino"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1565,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike ","volume":"41","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Balansard, Anne (Ed.), Jaulin, Annick (Ed.)

Title	Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne
Pages	217-235
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick
Translator(s)

Les commentaires aristotéliciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le traité Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement différents si l’exégète néoplatonicien n’avait pas eu accès aux commentaires d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre « l’étudiant le plus attentif d’Aristote » et ses abondantes références aux explications de l’exégète péripatéticien montrent de manière éloquente que les commentaires de ce dernier étaient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d’expliquer plusieurs difficultés du texte d’Aristote, exception faite des cas où Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-même) Platon. Dans l’un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprimée : Je crois qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle manière, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes péripatéticiens, les discours d’Aristote. Pourtant, à propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu’il ne respecte plus le but de l’antilogie d’Aristote, but qui vise l’apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte à Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu’il n’essaie pas uniquement de réfuter, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l’a précisément fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fréquemment même pas le sens apparent de son discours. Par l’emploi de l’adverbe κακοσχόλως («malicieusement», «avec perfidie»), Simplicius suggère à ses lecteurs qu’Alexandre connaissait en réalité le vrai objectif des critiques d’Aristote, qu’il a pourtant caché à ses propres lecteurs à cause de son appartenance à une secte philosophique, à savoir celle des Péripatéticiens. Les critiques d’Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci pédagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en œuvre pour protéger les âmes philosophantes des contresens qu’elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compréhensibles. Les critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l’âme, comme dans le passage précédemment cité, où Aristote, selon l’interprétation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre à une critique apparente du Timée 36e2-4 : « [L’âme], tissée à travers le ciel, du centre à l’extrémité […] commença une vie perpétuelle et raisonnable » (ἡ δὲ ἐκ μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν πάσῃ διεκλακεῖσα […] ἤρξατο ἀθανάτου καὶ φρονίμου βίου). Si Aristote a ainsi critiqué Platon, c’est pour que les philosophes débutants ne pensent pas, à cause de l’usage en réalité métaphorique du participe διεκλακεῖσα («tissée»), que l’âme du monde, matériellement présente dans le corps céleste, le contraigne à se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux conséquences non voulues : Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel, Que l’âme, exerçant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse. La critique d’Aristote concerne aussi la thèse, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut « engendré » (γενητός) dans le temps, thèse qu’Aristote attribue à Platon seulement à un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degré de connaissance des âmes philosophantes. Ces dernières n’arrivent pas encore à saisir le sens de γενητός comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Timée, à ce qui n’est pas « auto-constituant » (αὐτοσύστατον), mais qui reçoit son existence d’une autre réalité, aussi sous un mode intemporel. Du point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de préliminaire une fausse interprétation de Platon, afin que les étudiants ne soient pas amenés à croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Timée, à la création du monde. Les critiques que Simplicius adresse à Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au traité Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire à la Physique, sont toutes liées au fait que l’Aphrodisien interprète Aristote à la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le problème philosophique que nous nous proposons d’examiner ici, à savoir celui de savoir si l’univers a une cause efficiente ou non. [introduction p. 217-219]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1324","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1324,"authors_free":[{"id":1958,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2379,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2384,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"},"abstract":"Les commentaires aristot\u00e9liciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement diff\u00e9rents si l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien n\u2019avait pas eu acc\u00e8s aux commentaires d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre \u00ab l\u2019\u00e9tudiant le plus attentif d\u2019Aristote \u00bb et ses abondantes r\u00e9f\u00e9rences aux explications de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien montrent de mani\u00e8re \u00e9loquente que les commentaires de ce dernier \u00e9taient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d\u2019expliquer plusieurs difficult\u00e9s du texte d\u2019Aristote, exception faite des cas o\u00f9 Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-m\u00eame) Platon. Dans l\u2019un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprim\u00e9e :\r\n\r\n Je crois qu\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle mani\u00e8re, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, les discours d\u2019Aristote. Pourtant, \u00e0 propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu\u2019il ne respecte plus le but de l\u2019antilogie d\u2019Aristote, but qui vise l\u2019apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte \u00e0 Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu\u2019il n\u2019essaie pas uniquement de r\u00e9futer, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l\u2019a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fr\u00e9quemment m\u00eame pas le sens apparent de son discours.\r\n\r\nPar l\u2019emploi de l\u2019adverbe \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 (\u00abmalicieusement\u00bb, \u00abavec perfidie\u00bb), Simplicius sugg\u00e8re \u00e0 ses lecteurs qu\u2019Alexandre connaissait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 le vrai objectif des critiques d\u2019Aristote, qu\u2019il a pourtant cach\u00e9 \u00e0 ses propres lecteurs \u00e0 cause de son appartenance \u00e0 une secte philosophique, \u00e0 savoir celle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens. Les critiques d\u2019Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci p\u00e9dagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en \u0153uvre pour prot\u00e9ger les \u00e2mes philosophantes des contresens qu\u2019elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compr\u00e9hensibles.\r\n\r\nLes critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l\u2019\u00e2me, comme dans le passage pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment cit\u00e9, o\u00f9 Aristote, selon l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre \u00e0 une critique apparente du Tim\u00e9e 36e2-4 :\r\n\r\n \u00ab [L\u2019\u00e2me], tiss\u00e9e \u00e0 travers le ciel, du centre \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 [\u2026] commen\u00e7a une vie perp\u00e9tuelle et raisonnable \u00bb (\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u2026] \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5).\r\n\r\nSi Aristote a ainsi critiqu\u00e9 Platon, c\u2019est pour que les philosophes d\u00e9butants ne pensent pas, \u00e0 cause de l\u2019usage en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 m\u00e9taphorique du participe \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 (\u00abtiss\u00e9e\u00bb), que l\u2019\u00e2me du monde, mat\u00e9riellement pr\u00e9sente dans le corps c\u00e9leste, le contraigne \u00e0 se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux cons\u00e9quences non voulues :\r\n\r\n Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel,\r\n Que l\u2019\u00e2me, exer\u00e7ant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse.\r\n\r\nLa critique d\u2019Aristote concerne aussi la th\u00e8se, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut \u00ab engendr\u00e9 \u00bb (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) dans le temps, th\u00e8se qu\u2019Aristote attribue \u00e0 Platon seulement \u00e0 un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degr\u00e9 de connaissance des \u00e2mes philosophantes. Ces derni\u00e8res n\u2019arrivent pas encore \u00e0 saisir le sens de \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 ce qui n\u2019est pas \u00ab auto-constituant \u00bb (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), mais qui re\u00e7oit son existence d\u2019une autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9, aussi sous un mode intemporel.\r\n\r\nDu point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de pr\u00e9liminaire une fausse interpr\u00e9tation de Platon, afin que les \u00e9tudiants ne soient pas amen\u00e9s \u00e0 croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ation du monde.\r\n\r\nLes critiques que Simplicius adresse \u00e0 Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au trait\u00e9 Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, sont toutes li\u00e9es au fait que l\u2019Aphrodisien interpr\u00e8te Aristote \u00e0 la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le probl\u00e8me philosophique que nous nous proposons d\u2019examiner ici, \u00e0 savoir celui de savoir si l\u2019univers a une cause efficiente ou non.\r\n[introduction p. 217-219]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1324,"section_of":273,"pages":"217-235","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Baghdassarian, Fabienne (Ed.)

Title	La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse
Pages	239-256
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Baghdassarian, Fabienne
Translator(s)

This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comnène. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1325","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1325,"authors_free":[{"id":1959,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2380,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":130,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","free_first_name":"Fabienne","free_last_name":"Baghdassarian","norm_person":{"id":130,"first_name":"Fabienne","last_name":"Baghdassarian","full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1116095602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comn\u00e8ne. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":130,"full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1325,"section_of":1327,"pages":"239-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"R\u00e9ceptions de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne: D'Aristote \u00e0 Michel d'Eph\u00e8se","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"La conception aristot\u00e9licienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques, arch\u00e9ologiques et proprement th\u00e9ologiques, qui constituent \u00e0 la fois un d\u00e9fi pour Aristote lui-m\u00eame et un ensemble de probl\u00e8mes qu'il l\u00e8gue \u00e0 la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique \u00e0 son \u00e9gard. Restitu\u00e9e au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne voit s'actualiser les potentialit\u00e9s qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-m\u00eame, d\u00e9j\u00e0, commen\u00e7ait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans pr\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l'exhaustivit\u00e9, souhaite, par la diversit\u00e9 de ses contributions, donner \u00e0 lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques ou pol\u00e9miques, et tracer quelques lin\u00e9aments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M6C8JJNritLlEmQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1327,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Peeters Publishers","series":"Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse, 2017
By: Baghdassarian, Fabienne (Ed.), Guyomarc'h, Gweltaz (Ed.)

Title	Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2017
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Peeters Publishers
Series	Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Baghdassarian, Fabienne , Guyomarc'h, Gweltaz
Translator(s)

La conception aristotélicienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions épistémologiques, archéologiques et proprement théologiques, qui constituent à la fois un défi pour Aristote lui-même et un ensemble de problèmes qu'il lègue à la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique à son égard. Restituée au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la théologie aristotélicienne voit s'actualiser les potentialités qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-même, déjà, commençait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans prétendre à l'exhaustivité, souhaite, par la diversité de ses contributions, donner à lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient exégétiques ou polémiques, et tracer quelques linéaments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QiCqTTrNNH1upWZ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1327","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1327,"authors_free":[{"id":1960,"entry_id":1327,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":130,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","free_first_name":" Fabienne","free_last_name":"Baghdassarian","norm_person":{"id":130,"first_name":"Fabienne","last_name":"Baghdassarian","full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1116095602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2806,"entry_id":1327,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Guyomarc'h, Gweltaz","free_first_name":"Gweltaz","free_last_name":"Guyomarc'h","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"R\u00e9ceptions de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne: D'Aristote \u00e0 Michel d'Eph\u00e8se","main_title":{"title":"R\u00e9ceptions de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne: D'Aristote \u00e0 Michel d'Eph\u00e8se"},"abstract":"La conception aristot\u00e9licienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques, arch\u00e9ologiques et proprement th\u00e9ologiques, qui constituent \u00e0 la fois un d\u00e9fi pour Aristote lui-m\u00eame et un ensemble de probl\u00e8mes qu'il l\u00e8gue \u00e0 la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique \u00e0 son \u00e9gard. Restitu\u00e9e au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne voit s'actualiser les potentialit\u00e9s qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-m\u00eame, d\u00e9j\u00e0, commen\u00e7ait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans pr\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l'exhaustivit\u00e9, souhaite, par la diversit\u00e9 de ses contributions, donner \u00e0 lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques ou pol\u00e9miques, et tracer quelques lin\u00e9aments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QiCqTTrNNH1upWZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":130,"full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1327,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Peeters Publishers","series":"Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility, 2017
By: Van Riel, Gerd, Roskam, Geert (Ed.), Verheyden, Joseph (Ed.)

Title	How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2017
Published in	Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World
Pages	49-59
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Van Riel, Gerd
Editor(s)	Roskam, Geert , Verheyden, Joseph
Translator(s)

This article explores the problem of how perceptibility can arise in a Platonic universe where causes are always immaterial. Dualistic accounts that posit irreducible differences between the res extensa and the res cogitans fail to explain the existence of the material world, which the Neoplatonists endorse as a monistic system where every possible part of the universe is ultimately produced by the First Principle. Proclus provides a subtle answer to this problem by arguing that perceptibility is not something matter has out of itself, but is the effect of a gift of the Demiurge. The ten gifts of the Demiurge are given in the third book of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, with perceptibility being the first gift that determines the lower part of the cosmos, i.e., the corporeal realm. This article argues that perceptibility is not the effect of quantity as such but of the presence of qualities in the bulk that moulds it into the four primordial elements, and it ultimately brings the sensible realm back to intelligible causes. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KrcI8dAakPuz3gf

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1389","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1389,"authors_free":[{"id":2150,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2153,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":345,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roskam, Geert","free_first_name":"Geert","free_last_name":"Roskam","norm_person":{"id":345,"first_name":"Geert","last_name":"Roskam","full_name":"Roskam, Geert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1076800238","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2154,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":346,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","free_first_name":"Joseph","free_last_name":"Verheyden","norm_person":{"id":346,"first_name":"Joseph","last_name":"Verheyden","full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138082944","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility","main_title":{"title":"How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility"},"abstract":"This article explores the problem of how perceptibility can arise in a Platonic universe where causes are always immaterial. Dualistic accounts that posit irreducible differences between the res extensa and the res cogitans fail to explain the existence of the material world, which the Neoplatonists endorse as a monistic system where every possible part of the universe is ultimately produced by the First Principle. Proclus provides a subtle answer to this problem by arguing that perceptibility is not something matter has out of itself, but is the effect of a gift of the Demiurge. The ten gifts of the Demiurge are given in the third book of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, with perceptibility being the first gift that determines the lower part of the cosmos, i.e., the corporeal realm. This article argues that perceptibility is not the effect of quantity as such but of the presence of qualities in the bulk that moulds it into the four primordial elements, and it ultimately brings the sensible realm back to intelligible causes. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KrcI8dAakPuz3gf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":345,"full_name":"Roskam, Geert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":346,"full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1389,"section_of":1390,"pages":"49-59","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1390,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Roskam_Verheyden2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The present volume contains the proceedings of an international colloquium held in February 2015 at the Arts Faculty of the KU Leuven that brought together specialists in (late) ancient philosophy and early Christian studies. Contributors were asked to reflect on the reception of two foundational texts dealing with the origin of the world - the third book of Plato's Timaeus and the Genesis account of the creation. The organizers had a double aim: They wished to offer a forum for furthering the dialogue between colleagues working in these respective fields and to do this by studying in a comparative perspective both a crucial topic shared by these traditions and the literary genres through which this topic was developed and transmitted. The two reference texts have been studied in antiquity in a selective way, through citations and essays dealing with specific issues, and in a more systematic way through commentaries. The book is divided into three parts. The first one deals with the so-called Middle- and Neoplatonic tradition. The second part is dedicated to the Christian tradition and contains papers on several of the more important Christian authors who dealt with the Hexaemeron. The third part is entitled \"Some Other Voices\" and deals with authors and movements that combine elements from various traditions. Special attention is given to the nature and dynamics of the often close relationship between the various traditions as envisaged by Jewish-Christian authors and to the remarkable lack of interest from the Neoplatonists for \"the other side\". [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UyhI8rvumD2a8sx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1390,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World, 2017
By: Roskam, Geert (Ed.), Verheyden, Joseph (Ed.)

Title	Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2017
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Series	Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity
Volume	104
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Roskam, Geert , Verheyden, Joseph
Translator(s)

The present volume contains the proceedings of an international colloquium held in February 2015 at the Arts Faculty of the KU Leuven that brought together specialists in (late) ancient philosophy and early Christian studies. Contributors were asked to reflect on the reception of two foundational texts dealing with the origin of the world - the third book of Plato's Timaeus and the Genesis account of the creation. The organizers had a double aim: They wished to offer a forum for furthering the dialogue between colleagues working in these respective fields and to do this by studying in a comparative perspective both a crucial topic shared by these traditions and the literary genres through which this topic was developed and transmitted. The two reference texts have been studied in antiquity in a selective way, through citations and essays dealing with specific issues, and in a more systematic way through commentaries. The book is divided into three parts. The first one deals with the so-called Middle- and Neoplatonic tradition. The second part is dedicated to the Christian tradition and contains papers on several of the more important Christian authors who dealt with the Hexaemeron. The third part is entitled "Some Other Voices" and deals with authors and movements that combine elements from various traditions. Special attention is given to the nature and dynamics of the often close relationship between the various traditions as envisaged by Jewish-Christian authors and to the remarkable lack of interest from the Neoplatonists for "the other side". [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RheO6AHLHlNX3zp

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1390","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1390,"authors_free":[{"id":2151,"entry_id":1390,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":345,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roskam, Geert","free_first_name":"Geert","free_last_name":"Roskam","norm_person":{"id":345,"first_name":"Geert","last_name":"Roskam","full_name":"Roskam, Geert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1076800238","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2152,"entry_id":1390,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":346,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","free_first_name":"Joseph","free_last_name":"Verheyden","norm_person":{"id":346,"first_name":"Joseph","last_name":"Verheyden","full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138082944","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World","main_title":{"title":"Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World"},"abstract":"The present volume contains the proceedings of an international colloquium held in February 2015 at the Arts Faculty of the KU Leuven that brought together specialists in (late) ancient philosophy and early Christian studies. Contributors were asked to reflect on the reception of two foundational texts dealing with the origin of the world - the third book of Plato's Timaeus and the Genesis account of the creation. The organizers had a double aim: They wished to offer a forum for furthering the dialogue between colleagues working in these respective fields and to do this by studying in a comparative perspective both a crucial topic shared by these traditions and the literary genres through which this topic was developed and transmitted. The two reference texts have been studied in antiquity in a selective way, through citations and essays dealing with specific issues, and in a more systematic way through commentaries. The book is divided into three parts. The first one deals with the so-called Middle- and Neoplatonic tradition. The second part is dedicated to the Christian tradition and contains papers on several of the more important Christian authors who dealt with the Hexaemeron. The third part is entitled \"Some Other Voices\" and deals with authors and movements that combine elements from various traditions. Special attention is given to the nature and dynamics of the often close relationship between the various traditions as envisaged by Jewish-Christian authors and to the remarkable lack of interest from the Neoplatonists for \"the other side\". [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RheO6AHLHlNX3zp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":345,"full_name":"Roskam, Geert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":346,"full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1390,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity","volume":"104","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus, 2017
By: Němec, Václav

Title	Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2017
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (Neue Folge)
Volume	160
Pages	161-193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Němec, Václav
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The article is concerned with the problem of the genus of being in Neoplatonism. Specifically, it focuses on Pierre Hadot’s hypothesis, according to which some Neoplatonic authors, such as Porphyry, and under his influence Marius Victorinus and Dexippus, presupposed a common genus of being or substance in the Aristotelian sense, encompassing various ontological levels of the Platonic universe, namely the intelligible and sensible being or substance. A comprehensive analysis of relevant texts of Neoplatonic interpreters of and commentators on Aristotle’s writings shows that Hadot’s hypothesis is not tenable. In fact, Neoplatonists from Plotinus to Porphyry and Dexippus to Simplicius presupposed one genus of intelligible substance, which is the source of being for every other substance, including the sensible substance. Nevertheless, the intelligible substance or being is the "highest genus" only in the sense of Plato’s Sophist, and not in the sense of Aristotle’s Categories. Accordingly, the relationship between the highest "genus" and other "arts" of substance is not regarded as one of synonymy but as one of homonymy. More precisely, this is not homonymy "by chance" but homonymy "by intention," which can be specified as homonymy "based on analogy," "based on derivation from a single source," or "based on relation to a single thing." Moreover, the author argues that the crucial passage from Victorinus’s Against Arius Ib, which Hadot considered the main basis for his hypothesis, allows an alternative reading that is fully in accordance with the Neoplatonic doctrine as reconstructed in the article. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1R6jT31lIQv4mO1

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1403","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1403,"authors_free":[{"id":2188,"entry_id":1403,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":380,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","free_first_name":"V\u00e1clav","free_last_name":"N\u011bmec","norm_person":{"id":380,"first_name":"V\u00e1clav","last_name":"N\u011bmec","full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121953627X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"The article is concerned with the problem of the genus of being in Neoplatonism. Specifically, it focuses on Pierre Hadot\u2019s hypothesis, according to which some Neoplatonic authors, such as Porphyry, and under his influence Marius Victorinus and Dexippus, presupposed a common genus of being or substance in the Aristotelian sense, encompassing various ontological levels of the Platonic universe, namely the intelligible and sensible being or substance.\r\n\r\nA comprehensive analysis of relevant texts of Neoplatonic interpreters of and commentators on Aristotle\u2019s writings shows that Hadot\u2019s hypothesis is not tenable. In fact, Neoplatonists from Plotinus to Porphyry and Dexippus to Simplicius presupposed one genus of intelligible substance, which is the source of being for every other substance, including the sensible substance. Nevertheless, the intelligible substance or being is the \"highest genus\" only in the sense of Plato\u2019s Sophist, and not in the sense of Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Accordingly, the relationship between the highest \"genus\" and other \"arts\" of substance is not regarded as one of synonymy but as one of homonymy. More precisely, this is not homonymy \"by chance\" but homonymy \"by intention,\" which can be specified as homonymy \"based on analogy,\" \"based on derivation from a single source,\" or \"based on relation to a single thing.\"\r\n\r\nMoreover, the author argues that the crucial passage from Victorinus\u2019s Against Arius Ib, which Hadot considered the main basis for his hypothesis, allows an alternative reading that is fully in accordance with the Neoplatonic doctrine as reconstructed in the article. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1R6jT31lIQv4mO1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":380,"full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1403,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie (Neue Folge)","volume":"160","issue":"","pages":"161-193"}},"sort":[2017]}

The interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition, 2017
By: Hauer, Mareike, D'Anna, Giuseppe (Ed.), Fossati, Lorenzo (Ed.)

Title	The interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2017
Published in	Categories. Histories and Perspectives
Pages	35-48
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)	D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo
Translator(s)

The present contribution deals with the exegesis of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic commentaries. While Plotinus discusses Aristotle’s Categories in the course of his presentation of the Platonic metaphysical framework, later Neoplatonists, starting from Porphyry, comment on Aristotle’s Categories as a whole. There are eight Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories that are still extant: the shorter of two commentaries by Porphyry, an equally short one by Dexippus, and the commentaries by Ammonius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, David (Elias), and Boethius. References and remarks in these commentaries suggest that there have been further Neoplatonic commentaries, such as a commentary by Iamblichus. The present contribution focuses on two aspects of the Neoplatonic exegesis of Aristotle’s Categories: 1) the question of the Categories’ aim or purpose and 2) the understanding of the Aristotelian categories as predicates. In order to shed light on the first question, we will have a closer look at the Neoplatonic debate on the Categories’ σκοπός, i.e., its aim or purpose. The determination of a treatise’s σκοπός was conceived to be of utmost importance by Neoplatonists. Simplicius, for example, says: “For the goal (σκοπός), once correctly identified, defines and rectifies our thought, so that we are not vainly transported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.”¹ However, while many Neoplatonists agree on the importance of the σκοπός, they do not agree on the content of the Categories’ σκοπός. We will have a closer look at Simplicius’ presentation of the different positions, as he deals with them individually and discusses them thoroughly. However, we will also compare it with the remarks by other Neoplatonists. There are extensive and comprehensive scholarly articles that deal with the σκοπός debate in Neoplatonic commentaries and especially with Simplicius’ presentation of the σκοπός debate (see especially Hoffmann 1987), so that the present contribution should rather be regarded as an overview of, or introduction to, the topic. The contribution, moreover, also aims at connecting the debate with the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Aristotelian categories. Many Neoplatonists conceived of the Aristotelian categories as being only applicable to the sensible realm, i.e., the lowest level within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. Interestingly, their presentation of the Aristotelian categories involves different descriptions such as “highest genera,” “highest predicates,” or “common items.” I will focus on the Neoplatonic description of the Aristotelian categories as predicates and the fact that, though Neoplatonists commonly designate the categories as predicates, they do not all refer to the same meaning. For all the descriptions entail different theoretical contexts—participation, predication, and universality—which, in turn, stem from complex doctrinal discussions of different philosophical schools. [introduction p. 35-36]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rAqaBbReFwMMBhs

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1407,"authors_free":[{"id":2198,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2199,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":388,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"D'Anna","norm_person":{"id":388,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"D'Anna","full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13968588X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2200,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":389,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","free_first_name":"Lorenzo","free_last_name":"Fossati","norm_person":{"id":389,"first_name":"Lorenzo","last_name":"Fossati","full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"The present contribution deals with the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic commentaries. While Plotinus discusses Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the course of his presentation of the Platonic metaphysical framework, later Neoplatonists, starting from Porphyry, comment on Aristotle\u2019s Categories as a whole. There are eight Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories that are still extant: the shorter of two commentaries by Porphyry, an equally short one by Dexippus, and the commentaries by Ammonius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, David (Elias), and Boethius. References and remarks in these commentaries suggest that there have been further Neoplatonic commentaries, such as a commentary by Iamblichus.\r\n\r\nThe present contribution focuses on two aspects of the Neoplatonic exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories: 1) the question of the Categories\u2019 aim or purpose and 2) the understanding of the Aristotelian categories as predicates. In order to shed light on the first question, we will have a closer look at the Neoplatonic debate on the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, i.e., its aim or purpose. The determination of a treatise\u2019s \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 was conceived to be of utmost importance by Neoplatonists. Simplicius, for example, says:\r\n\r\n \u201cFor the goal (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2), once correctly identified, defines and rectifies our thought, so that we are not vainly transported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.\u201d\u00b9\r\n\r\nHowever, while many Neoplatonists agree on the importance of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, they do not agree on the content of the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2. We will have a closer look at Simplicius\u2019 presentation of the different positions, as he deals with them individually and discusses them thoroughly. However, we will also compare it with the remarks by other Neoplatonists.\r\n\r\nThere are extensive and comprehensive scholarly articles that deal with the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 debate in Neoplatonic commentaries and especially with Simplicius\u2019 presentation of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 debate (see especially Hoffmann 1987), so that the present contribution should rather be regarded as an overview of, or introduction to, the topic. The contribution, moreover, also aims at connecting the debate with the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Aristotelian categories. Many Neoplatonists conceived of the Aristotelian categories as being only applicable to the sensible realm, i.e., the lowest level within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework.\r\n\r\nInterestingly, their presentation of the Aristotelian categories involves different descriptions such as \u201chighest genera,\u201d \u201chighest predicates,\u201d or \u201ccommon items.\u201d I will focus on the Neoplatonic description of the Aristotelian categories as predicates and the fact that, though Neoplatonists commonly designate the categories as predicates, they do not all refer to the same meaning. For all the descriptions entail different theoretical contexts\u2014participation, predication, and universality\u2014which, in turn, stem from complex doctrinal discussions of different philosophical schools. [introduction p. 35-36]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rAqaBbReFwMMBhs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":388,"full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":389,"full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1407,"section_of":1408,"pages":"35-48","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1408,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2am9O0Ljwyc5hy1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1408,"pubplace":"Hildesheim, Zurich, New York","publisher":"Georg Olms Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Categories. Histories and Perspectives, 2017
By: D'Anna, Giuseppe (Ed.), Fossati, Lorenzo (Ed.)

Title	Categories. Histories and Perspectives
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2017
Publication Place	Hildesheim, Zurich, New York
Publisher	Georg Olms Verlag
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo
Translator(s)

The reflection upon the categories leaves a fundamental mark in the history of philosophy. By theorizing such issue, philosophy gains a meta-reflexive feature, which is probably one of the most distinguishing traits of this kind of knowledge, including its method. In the history of philosophy, the question of the categories has been gradually investigated and clarified but it still remains to be solved. Therefore, from a philosophical perspective, the history of the categories is far from coming to an end: since ancient times, it has been debated and discussed, thus revealing all its theoretical potential. Such a broad history should be taken into account by any present study that wants to represent a real progress in the research, in order to avoid repeating errors that have been already made in the past. Among other things, this is one of the objectives of the present volume, which comes from the will to describe some paths and perspectives of this history, without claiming to deliver an exhaustive overview and rather representing the first partial contribution to a wider project. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5WHKZ8gLcfcivZ4

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1408","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1408,"authors_free":[{"id":2201,"entry_id":1408,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":388,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"D'Anna","norm_person":{"id":388,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"D'Anna","full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13968588X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2202,"entry_id":1408,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":389,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","free_first_name":"Lorenzo","free_last_name":"Fossati","norm_person":{"id":389,"first_name":"Lorenzo","last_name":"Fossati","full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives","main_title":{"title":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives"},"abstract":"The reflection upon the categories leaves a fundamental mark in the history of philosophy. By theorizing such issue, philosophy gains a meta-reflexive feature, which is probably one of the most distinguishing traits of this kind of knowledge, including its method. In the history of philosophy, the question of the categories has been gradually investigated and clarified but it still remains to be solved. Therefore, from a philosophical perspective, the history of the categories is far from coming to an end: since ancient times, it has been debated and discussed, thus revealing all its theoretical potential. Such a broad history should be taken into account by any present study that wants to represent a real progress in the research, in order to avoid repeating errors that have been already made in the past. Among other things, this is one of the objectives of the present volume, which comes from the will to describe some paths and perspectives of this history, without claiming to deliver an exhaustive overview and rather representing the first partial contribution to a wider project. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5WHKZ8gLcfcivZ4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":388,"full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":389,"full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1408,"pubplace":"Hildesheim, Zurich, New York","publisher":"Georg Olms Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016), 2017
By: Hoine, Pieter d’

Title	Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Journal	Méthexis
Volume	29
Issue	1
Pages	188-198
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoine, Pieter d’
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In conclusione, mi permetto ancora alcune osservazioni sulla forma di quest’opera. Benché Simplicio apprezzi la laconicità (cioè la famosa brachylogia) degli antichi, credo che nessuno abbia mai pensato che il commentatore tenti di imitarla. Anzi, i suoi commentari sono caratterizzati da una certa prolissità e da ripetizioni che non sempre sono necessitate da bisogni esegetici. Per di più, il filo conduttore delle sue analisi è spesso interrotto da discussioni dossografiche o da digressioni che sono sì interessanti, ma non sempre pertinenti all’esegesi del testo in considerazione. Temo che anche il commentario di Ivan Licciardi non sia del tutto privo di queste imperfezioni. Inoltre, penso che alcune scelte formali – come quella di presentare il greco non a fronte della traduzione, ma piuttosto di seguito, e quella di non usare note nella parte del commentario – non abbiano contribuito a rendere più facile la navigazione attraverso le ricche informazioni che questo libro offre. Sotto questi aspetti, il libro ha l’impronta di un’opera prima, ma va detto che nella sua premessa l’autore stesso se ne mostra ben conscio (p. 19). Esprimendo queste riserve, non ho l’intenzione di ridurre i meriti di questo studio né di sollevare dubbi sul contributo dato da questo libro alla nostra comprensione dei temi discussi. Il merito di questo libro è soprattutto quello di aver consentito una migliore comprensione del contesto storico e filosofico in cui e delle ragioni per cui Simplicio ci ha trasmesso Parmenide. Anche se questo libro può aiutare gli studiosi dei presocratici a contestualizzare la loro stessa interpretazione del filosofo di Elea, è soprattutto agli studi neoplatonici che l’autore contribuisce. Infatti, il Parmenide di Simplicio è innanzitutto un Parmenide neoplatonico. Il senso storico e critico moderno fanno sì che noi non abbiamo più a nostra disposizione quella chiave ermeneutica neoplatonica che consiste nel riferire contraddizioni apparenti a diversi piani della realtà presenti solo implicitamente nel pensiero degli autori che studiamo. Il nostro obiettivo non è più quello di difendere la fondamentale unità del pensiero antico contro i cristiani né quello di mostrare la verità eternamente infallibile del platonismo. Diversamente, pensiamo che sia più sensato rintracciare non solo i punti di accordo, ma anche le discordanze e le discontinuità nella storia del pensiero, in cui lo stesso Simplicio merita una posizione di rilievo. L’interpretazione simpliciana di Parmenide ha sì ‘salvato’ parecchie linee del Poema dall’oblio, ma il prezzo che l’Eleate ha pagato è stato quello di essere stato forzato, nelle parole di Licciardi, in una ‘griglia concettuale totalmente estranea alla logica del Poema’ (p. 43). L’ironia di questa vicenda è che sia stato proprio l’intento di Simplicio di coltivare l’amicizia con tutti i filosofi pagani ad averlo spinto, in fin dei conti, a tradire tutti. [conclusion p. 197-198]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AZQTPKFglABgm9k

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1484","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1484,"authors_free":[{"id":2569,"entry_id":1484,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter d\u2019","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)","main_title":{"title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"},"abstract":"In conclusione, mi permetto ancora alcune osservazioni sulla forma di quest\u2019opera. Bench\u00e9 Simplicio apprezzi la laconicit\u00e0 (cio\u00e8 la famosa brachylogia) degli antichi, credo che nessuno abbia mai pensato che il commentatore tenti di imitarla. Anzi, i suoi commentari sono caratterizzati da una certa prolissit\u00e0 e da ripetizioni che non sempre sono necessitate da bisogni esegetici. Per di pi\u00f9, il filo conduttore delle sue analisi \u00e8 spesso interrotto da discussioni dossografiche o da digressioni che sono s\u00ec interessanti, ma non sempre pertinenti all\u2019esegesi del testo in considerazione.\r\n\r\nTemo che anche il commentario di Ivan Licciardi non sia del tutto privo di queste imperfezioni. Inoltre, penso che alcune scelte formali \u2013 come quella di presentare il greco non a fronte della traduzione, ma piuttosto di seguito, e quella di non usare note nella parte del commentario \u2013 non abbiano contribuito a rendere pi\u00f9 facile la navigazione attraverso le ricche informazioni che questo libro offre. Sotto questi aspetti, il libro ha l\u2019impronta di un\u2019opera prima, ma va detto che nella sua premessa l\u2019autore stesso se ne mostra ben conscio (p. 19).\r\n\r\nEsprimendo queste riserve, non ho l\u2019intenzione di ridurre i meriti di questo studio n\u00e9 di sollevare dubbi sul contributo dato da questo libro alla nostra comprensione dei temi discussi. Il merito di questo libro \u00e8 soprattutto quello di aver consentito una migliore comprensione del contesto storico e filosofico in cui e delle ragioni per cui Simplicio ci ha trasmesso Parmenide. Anche se questo libro pu\u00f2 aiutare gli studiosi dei presocratici a contestualizzare la loro stessa interpretazione del filosofo di Elea, \u00e8 soprattutto agli studi neoplatonici che l\u2019autore contribuisce.\r\n\r\nInfatti, il Parmenide di Simplicio \u00e8 innanzitutto un Parmenide neoplatonico. Il senso storico e critico moderno fanno s\u00ec che noi non abbiamo pi\u00f9 a nostra disposizione quella chiave ermeneutica neoplatonica che consiste nel riferire contraddizioni apparenti a diversi piani della realt\u00e0 presenti solo implicitamente nel pensiero degli autori che studiamo. Il nostro obiettivo non \u00e8 pi\u00f9 quello di difendere la fondamentale unit\u00e0 del pensiero antico contro i cristiani n\u00e9 quello di mostrare la verit\u00e0 eternamente infallibile del platonismo.\r\n\r\nDiversamente, pensiamo che sia pi\u00f9 sensato rintracciare non solo i punti di accordo, ma anche le discordanze e le discontinuit\u00e0 nella storia del pensiero, in cui lo stesso Simplicio merita una posizione di rilievo. L\u2019interpretazione simpliciana di Parmenide ha s\u00ec \u2018salvato\u2019 parecchie linee del Poema dall\u2019oblio, ma il prezzo che l\u2019Eleate ha pagato \u00e8 stato quello di essere stato forzato, nelle parole di Licciardi, in una \u2018griglia concettuale totalmente estranea alla logica del Poema\u2019 (p. 43).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ironia di questa vicenda \u00e8 che sia stato proprio l\u2019intento di Simplicio di coltivare l\u2019amicizia con tutti i filosofi pagani ad averlo spinto, in fin dei conti, a tradire tutti.\r\n[conclusion p. 197-198]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AZQTPKFglABgm9k","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"29","issue":"1","pages":"188-198"}},"sort":[2017]}

Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation, 2017
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.), Michalewski, Alexandra (Ed.)

Title	Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2017
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Series	Monothéisme et philosophie
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine , Michalewski, Alexandra
Translator(s)

Ce volume étudie les mutations de sens que la notion de principe a connues au sein de la cosmologie platonicienne, depuis l’ancienne Académie jusqu’au néoplatonisme tardif. Dans cet intervalle, la question de la nature et du nombre des principes cosmologiques est apparue comme un enjeu central de la défense du platonisme, dans sa confrontation avec les écoles rivales, mais aussi, à partir de l’époque impériale, avec le christianisme. Au sein de cette histoire, les critiques et réceptions aristotéliciennes ont joué un rôle déterminant et ont, d'un certain point de vue, préparé le tournant inauguré par Plotin : de Théophraste, qui le premier articule la causalité du Premier Moteur et l'héritage platonicien des Formes intelligibles, à Alexandre d'Aphrodise, qui critique l'anthropomorphisme inhérent aux théories providentialistes des platoniciens impériaux, les exégètes péripatéticiens ont ouvert des pistes qui seront adaptées et transformées à travers les différents systèmes néoplatoniciens. Reprenant à Alexandre sa critique des conceptions artificialistes de la cosmologie platonicienne, Plotin s'oppose à lui pour défendre l'efficience causale des Formes intelligibles, qu'il définit comme des réalités vivantes et intellectives, en les insérant dans un système de dérivation de toutes choses depuis l'Un. À sa suite, les différents diadoques néoplatoniciens placeront la vie au cœur du monde intelligible, définissant les Formes comme des réalités vivantes et intellectives dotées d’une efficience propre　: la puissance de faire advenir des réalités dérivées. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xevkNHC2VXe7Wgm

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1491","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1491,"authors_free":[{"id":2584,"entry_id":1491,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2585,"entry_id":1491,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":553,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","free_first_name":"Alexandra","free_last_name":"Michalewski","norm_person":{"id":553,"first_name":"Alexandra","last_name":"Michalewski","full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194315127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et syst\u00e9matisation","main_title":{"title":"Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et syst\u00e9matisation"},"abstract":"Ce volume \u00e9tudie les mutations de sens que la notion de principe a connues au sein de la cosmologie platonicienne, depuis l\u2019ancienne Acad\u00e9mie jusqu\u2019au n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif. Dans cet intervalle, la question de la nature et du nombre des principes cosmologiques est apparue comme un enjeu central de la d\u00e9fense du platonisme, dans sa confrontation avec les \u00e9coles rivales, mais aussi, \u00e0 partir de l\u2019\u00e9poque imp\u00e9riale, avec le christianisme. Au sein de cette histoire, les critiques et r\u00e9ceptions aristot\u00e9liciennes ont jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le d\u00e9terminant et ont, d'un certain point de vue, pr\u00e9par\u00e9 le tournant inaugur\u00e9 par Plotin : de Th\u00e9ophraste, qui le premier articule la causalit\u00e9 du Premier Moteur et l'h\u00e9ritage platonicien des Formes intelligibles, \u00e0 Alexandre d'Aphrodise, qui critique l'anthropomorphisme inh\u00e9rent aux th\u00e9ories providentialistes des platoniciens imp\u00e9riaux, les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens ont ouvert des pistes qui seront adapt\u00e9es et transform\u00e9es \u00e0 travers les diff\u00e9rents syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Reprenant \u00e0 Alexandre sa critique des conceptions artificialistes de la cosmologie platonicienne, Plotin s'oppose \u00e0 lui pour d\u00e9fendre l'efficience causale des Formes intelligibles, qu'il d\u00e9finit comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives, en les ins\u00e9rant dans un syst\u00e8me de d\u00e9rivation de toutes choses depuis l'Un. \u00c0 sa suite, les diff\u00e9rents diadoques n\u00e9oplatoniciens placeront la vie au c\u0153ur du monde intelligible, d\u00e9finissant les Formes comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives dot\u00e9es d\u2019une efficience propre\u3000: la puissance de faire advenir des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s d\u00e9riv\u00e9es. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xevkNHC2VXe7Wgm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":553,"full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1491,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Monoth\u00e9isme et philosophie ","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

Une histoire néoplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2, 2017
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine, Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.), Michalewski, Alexandra (Ed.)

Title	Une histoire néoplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation
Pages	249-272
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine , Michalewski, Alexandra
Translator(s)

Saisir le but (σκοπός) de la Physique, souligne Simplicius au début de son Commentaire, implique de la situer au sein de la partie physique de la philosophie, voire de la philosophie d’Aristote dans son ensemble. Elle concerne « les principes de toutes les réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles, c’est-à-dire corporelles ». Par ces mots, Simplicius indique qu’en tant que science des principes, la Physique se place dans une perspective immanente, à la différence de l’approche (platonicienne) qui vise les principes transcendants des êtres naturels. Le présent traité a pour but d’enseigner ce qui appartient en commun à toutes les réalités naturelles en tant qu’elles sont naturelles, c’est-à-dire corporelles. Ce qui leur est commun, ce sont les principes et leurs concomitants. Les principes sont les causes dites au sens propre et les causes accessoires. Selon eux [i.e. les Péripatéticiens], les causes sont la cause productrice et la cause finale, les causes accessoires la forme, la matière et, en général, les éléments. Platon ajoute aux causes la cause paradigmatique, aux causes accessoires la cause instrumentale. La Physique concerne les principes et les concomitants communs, immanents, aux réalités naturelles. Simplicius identifie les principes aux quatre causes, qu’il répartit en deux groupes. Il reconnaît une supériorité à la cause productrice et à la cause finale, ce dont il trouve l’indice dans l’ordre que suit Aristote : matérielle et formelle, puis productrice et finale. Les premières sont des causes immanentes contenues dans le produit, les secondes des causes transcendantes et séparées de lui. Ces dernières sont plus proprement principes au sens où elles désignent ce d’où le produit provient et à quoi il retourne, tout en différant de lui. La séparation renferme le moyen d’en sortir, appelant à une transcendance qui reste néanmoins sur le même plan, celui de la physique. À ce degré, la séparation ne signifie pas la supériorité ontologique du principe, mais seulement son extériorité. De cette distinction, Simplicius conclut qu’Aristote mène une étude conversive des causes, puisqu’il part de la plus basse (la cause matérielle étudiée par les anciens qui ramenaient toute explication à la matière) et termine par la plus éminente (la cause finale, préoccupation ultime du physicien selon le Phédon, où Socrate enjoint à chercher ce en vue de quoi est ce qui vient à exister). Ce faisant, il souligne le soin permanent d’Aristote à provoquer chez le lecteur une prise de conscience progressive de la nécessité de dépasser le plan de la physique pour s’élever à d’autres principes de la nature. La conversion qu’Aristote opère reste néanmoins dans le plan d’immanence des réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles, car la Physique évacue deux types de causes, plus proprement platoniciennes : la cause paradigmatique et la cause instrumentale. Simplicius ne s’étend pas sur cette décision dans son introduction, mais il faut poursuivre le Commentaire pour en trouver les raisons. La cause paradigmatique se distingue de la cause formelle par sa transcendance. Elle est le modèle intellectif qui préside à l’information selon l’aptitude de ce qui le reçoit, « l’essence idéale par soi à l’image de laquelle est façonné ce qui est ici-bas ». Quant à la cause instrumentale, elle se distingue de la cause productrice comme ce au moyen de quoi (δι’ οὗ) à l’égard de ce par quoi (ὑφ’ οὗ) : elle est en quelque sorte une cause productrice intermédiaire et imparfaite, au sens où elle meut tout en étant elle-même mue. Si elle est absente de la Physique, c’est en raison de sa fonction première : commentant le Timée, Proclus explique que la cause instrumentale désigne le principe directement moteur de la matière et de la forme, mais dont le statut est intermédiaire car son rôle moteur provient d’un principe supérieur. Par là, il désigne plus précisément l’Âme du monde, dont la motricité procède ultimement du Démiurge. On le voit, ces deux causes n’ont pas leur place dans la Physique, parce qu’elles font intervenir des principes supérieurs aux réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles : les Idées et le Démiurge. En résumé, la Physique s’occupe des formes dans la matière, les formes non séparées, et elle actualise la cognition en puissance de l’intellect qui se produit au moyen de la sensation et de la représentation. Autrement dit, elle vise à comprendre les formes dans la matière grâce aux modes de connaissance qui leur sont adaptés, sans faire appel à d’autres modes supérieurs de compréhension. En tant que partie de la philosophie, elle examine les principes nécessaires pour saisir le monde (sensible) dans lequel nous vivons, d’un point de vue qui lui est propre et immanent. Sur cette base, je voudrais examiner où Simplicius situe la Physique dans l’histoire de la philosophie, et en particulier dans l’histoire des principes de la nature, en prenant pour cadre la systématicité qu’il trouve chez les philosophes présocratiques. Il s’agira d’un côté de comprendre comment ces principes s’articulent à ceux privilégiés par les formes concurrentes de la physique, celles qui traitent des causes supérieures, et de l’autre de montrer en quoi les Présocratiques expliquent le développement à la fois historique et taxinomique du système physique du néoplatonisme tardif. [introduction p. 249-251]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JiUJD0OfD6bN2xM

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1503","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1503,"authors_free":[{"id":2611,"entry_id":1503,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2612,"entry_id":1503,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2613,"entry_id":1503,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":553,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","free_first_name":"Alexandra","free_last_name":"Michalewski","norm_person":{"id":553,"first_name":"Alexandra","last_name":"Michalewski","full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194315127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2","main_title":{"title":"Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2"},"abstract":"Saisir le but (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2) de la Physique, souligne Simplicius au d\u00e9but de son Commentaire, implique de la situer au sein de la partie physique de la philosophie, voire de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote dans son ensemble. Elle concerne \u00ab les principes de toutes les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire corporelles \u00bb. Par ces mots, Simplicius indique qu\u2019en tant que science des principes, la Physique se place dans une perspective immanente, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de l\u2019approche (platonicienne) qui vise les principes transcendants des \u00eatres naturels.\r\n\r\nLe pr\u00e9sent trait\u00e9 a pour but d\u2019enseigner ce qui appartient en commun \u00e0 toutes les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant qu\u2019elles sont naturelles, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire corporelles. Ce qui leur est commun, ce sont les principes et leurs concomitants. Les principes sont les causes dites au sens propre et les causes accessoires. Selon eux [i.e. les P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens], les causes sont la cause productrice et la cause finale, les causes accessoires la forme, la mati\u00e8re et, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, les \u00e9l\u00e9ments. Platon ajoute aux causes la cause paradigmatique, aux causes accessoires la cause instrumentale.\r\n\r\nLa Physique concerne les principes et les concomitants communs, immanents, aux r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles. Simplicius identifie les principes aux quatre causes, qu\u2019il r\u00e9partit en deux groupes. Il reconna\u00eet une sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 \u00e0 la cause productrice et \u00e0 la cause finale, ce dont il trouve l\u2019indice dans l\u2019ordre que suit Aristote : mat\u00e9rielle et formelle, puis productrice et finale. Les premi\u00e8res sont des causes immanentes contenues dans le produit, les secondes des causes transcendantes et s\u00e9par\u00e9es de lui. Ces derni\u00e8res sont plus proprement principes au sens o\u00f9 elles d\u00e9signent ce d\u2019o\u00f9 le produit provient et \u00e0 quoi il retourne, tout en diff\u00e9rant de lui. La s\u00e9paration renferme le moyen d\u2019en sortir, appelant \u00e0 une transcendance qui reste n\u00e9anmoins sur le m\u00eame plan, celui de la physique. \u00c0 ce degr\u00e9, la s\u00e9paration ne signifie pas la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 ontologique du principe, mais seulement son ext\u00e9riorit\u00e9.\r\n\r\nDe cette distinction, Simplicius conclut qu\u2019Aristote m\u00e8ne une \u00e9tude conversive des causes, puisqu\u2019il part de la plus basse (la cause mat\u00e9rielle \u00e9tudi\u00e9e par les anciens qui ramenaient toute explication \u00e0 la mati\u00e8re) et termine par la plus \u00e9minente (la cause finale, pr\u00e9occupation ultime du physicien selon le Ph\u00e9don, o\u00f9 Socrate enjoint \u00e0 chercher ce en vue de quoi est ce qui vient \u00e0 exister). Ce faisant, il souligne le soin permanent d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 provoquer chez le lecteur une prise de conscience progressive de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de d\u00e9passer le plan de la physique pour s\u2019\u00e9lever \u00e0 d\u2019autres principes de la nature. La conversion qu\u2019Aristote op\u00e8re reste n\u00e9anmoins dans le plan d\u2019immanence des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles, car la Physique \u00e9vacue deux types de causes, plus proprement platoniciennes : la cause paradigmatique et la cause instrumentale.\r\n\r\nSimplicius ne s\u2019\u00e9tend pas sur cette d\u00e9cision dans son introduction, mais il faut poursuivre le Commentaire pour en trouver les raisons. La cause paradigmatique se distingue de la cause formelle par sa transcendance. Elle est le mod\u00e8le intellectif qui pr\u00e9side \u00e0 l\u2019information selon l\u2019aptitude de ce qui le re\u00e7oit, \u00ab l\u2019essence id\u00e9ale par soi \u00e0 l\u2019image de laquelle est fa\u00e7onn\u00e9 ce qui est ici-bas \u00bb. Quant \u00e0 la cause instrumentale, elle se distingue de la cause productrice comme ce au moyen de quoi (\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57) \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de ce par quoi (\u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57) : elle est en quelque sorte une cause productrice interm\u00e9diaire et imparfaite, au sens o\u00f9 elle meut tout en \u00e9tant elle-m\u00eame mue. Si elle est absente de la Physique, c\u2019est en raison de sa fonction premi\u00e8re : commentant le Tim\u00e9e, Proclus explique que la cause instrumentale d\u00e9signe le principe directement moteur de la mati\u00e8re et de la forme, mais dont le statut est interm\u00e9diaire car son r\u00f4le moteur provient d\u2019un principe sup\u00e9rieur. Par l\u00e0, il d\u00e9signe plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment l\u2019\u00c2me du monde, dont la motricit\u00e9 proc\u00e8de ultimement du D\u00e9miurge. On le voit, ces deux causes n\u2019ont pas leur place dans la Physique, parce qu\u2019elles font intervenir des principes sup\u00e9rieurs aux r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles : les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge.\r\n\r\nEn r\u00e9sum\u00e9, la Physique s\u2019occupe des formes dans la mati\u00e8re, les formes non s\u00e9par\u00e9es, et elle actualise la cognition en puissance de l\u2019intellect qui se produit au moyen de la sensation et de la repr\u00e9sentation. Autrement dit, elle vise \u00e0 comprendre les formes dans la mati\u00e8re gr\u00e2ce aux modes de connaissance qui leur sont adapt\u00e9s, sans faire appel \u00e0 d\u2019autres modes sup\u00e9rieurs de compr\u00e9hension. En tant que partie de la philosophie, elle examine les principes n\u00e9cessaires pour saisir le monde (sensible) dans lequel nous vivons, d\u2019un point de vue qui lui est propre et immanent.\r\n\r\nSur cette base, je voudrais examiner o\u00f9 Simplicius situe la Physique dans l\u2019histoire de la philosophie, et en particulier dans l\u2019histoire des principes de la nature, en prenant pour cadre la syst\u00e9maticit\u00e9 qu\u2019il trouve chez les philosophes pr\u00e9socratiques. Il s\u2019agira d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9 de comprendre comment ces principes s\u2019articulent \u00e0 ceux privil\u00e9gi\u00e9s par les formes concurrentes de la physique, celles qui traitent des causes sup\u00e9rieures, et de l\u2019autre de montrer en quoi les Pr\u00e9socratiques expliquent le d\u00e9veloppement \u00e0 la fois historique et taxinomique du syst\u00e8me physique du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif. [introduction p. 249-251]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JiUJD0OfD6bN2xM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":553,"full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1503,"section_of":1491,"pages":"249-272","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1491,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et syst\u00e9matisation","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gavray2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ce volume \u00e9tudie les mutations de sens que la notion de principe a connues au sein de la cosmologie platonicienne, depuis l\u2019ancienne Acad\u00e9mie jusqu\u2019au n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif. Dans cet intervalle, la question de la nature et du nombre des principes cosmologiques est apparue comme un enjeu central de la d\u00e9fense du platonisme, dans sa confrontation avec les \u00e9coles rivales, mais aussi, \u00e0 partir de l\u2019\u00e9poque imp\u00e9riale, avec le christianisme. Au sein de cette histoire, les critiques et r\u00e9ceptions aristot\u00e9liciennes ont jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le d\u00e9terminant et ont, d'un certain point de vue, pr\u00e9par\u00e9 le tournant inaugur\u00e9 par Plotin : de Th\u00e9ophraste, qui le premier articule la causalit\u00e9 du Premier Moteur et l'h\u00e9ritage platonicien des Formes intelligibles, \u00e0 Alexandre d'Aphrodise, qui critique l'anthropomorphisme inh\u00e9rent aux th\u00e9ories providentialistes des platoniciens imp\u00e9riaux, les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens ont ouvert des pistes qui seront adapt\u00e9es et transform\u00e9es \u00e0 travers les diff\u00e9rents syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Reprenant \u00e0 Alexandre sa critique des conceptions artificialistes de la cosmologie platonicienne, Plotin s'oppose \u00e0 lui pour d\u00e9fendre l'efficience causale des Formes intelligibles, qu'il d\u00e9finit comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives, en les ins\u00e9rant dans un syst\u00e8me de d\u00e9rivation de toutes choses depuis l'Un. \u00c0 sa suite, les diff\u00e9rents diadoques n\u00e9oplatoniciens placeront la vie au c\u0153ur du monde intelligible, d\u00e9finissant les Formes comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives dot\u00e9es d\u2019une efficience propre\u3000: la puissance de faire advenir des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s d\u00e9riv\u00e9es. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xevkNHC2VXe7Wgm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1491,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Monoth\u00e9isme et philosophie ","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}

La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2017
Journal	Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques
Volume	101
Pages	569-584
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Physics II 2, 193b35–194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one. In a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter. The Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or "form in itself," which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CX8My3vkHJrymmk

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"In Physics II 2, 193b35\u2013194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one.\r\n\r\nIn a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter.\r\n\r\nThe Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or \"form in itself,\" which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CX8My3vkHJrymmk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":[2017]}

The notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in Simplicius' discussion of quality, 2016
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	The notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in Simplicius' discussion of quality
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	27
Pages	65-83
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper deals with the meaning and function of epitêdeiotês in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, particularly in chapter 8, the discussion of the category of quality. Based on the question as to whether Simplicius uses epitêdeiotês as a technical term or as a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, different passages of chapter 8 will be analyzed and compared with Aristotle's discussion of dynamis. It will be argued that Simplicius distinguishes between two senses of epitêdeiotês, one of which can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of dynamis; the other sense, however, differs from the Aristotelian notion of dynamis and, instead, appears to be in agreement with the use of epitêdeiotês in the theory of participation established by Simplicius' Neoplatonic predecessors. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uZGcu7N3ynTApz0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1150","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1150,"authors_free":[{"id":1725,"entry_id":1150,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality","main_title":{"title":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality"},"abstract":"This paper deals with the meaning and function of epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, particularly in chapter 8, the discussion of the category of quality. Based on the question as to whether Simplicius uses epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas as a technical term or as a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, different passages of chapter 8 will be analyzed and compared with Aristotle's discussion of dynamis. It will be argued that Simplicius distinguishes between two senses of epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas, one of which can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of dynamis; the other sense, however, differs from the Aristotelian notion of dynamis and, instead, appears to be in agreement with the use of epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas in the theory of participation established by Simplicius' Neoplatonic predecessors. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uZGcu7N3ynTApz0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1150,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"27","issue":"","pages":"65-83"}},"sort":[2016]}

The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources, 2016
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages	295-326
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Here, therefore, are the conclusions to which one might be led as regards Simplicius’ works. We have extant: the commentaries on Epictetus’ Encheiridion, on Aristotle’s De Caelo, Physics, Categories, and probably on his De Anima. Lost, though attested in a more or less certain fashion: a commentary on the first book of Euclid’s Elements, a commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, a commentary on Iamblichus’ work devoted to the Pythagorean sect, an epitome of Theophrastus’ Physics (if the commentary on the De Anima, where one finds a reference to this work, is authentic), and perhaps a commentary on Hermogenes’ Tekhnê. [conclusion p. 326]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SguvcKAd2fhClm6

{"_index":"sire","_id":"670","_score":null,"_source":{"id":670,"authors_free":[{"id":982,"entry_id":670,"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":983,"entry_id":670,"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":"The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources","main_title":{"title":"The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources"},"abstract":"Here, therefore, are the conclusions to which one might be led as regards Simplicius\u2019 works. We have extant: the commentaries on Epictetus\u2019 Encheiridion, on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo, Physics, Categories, and probably on his De Anima. Lost, though attested in a more or less certain fashion: a commentary on the first book of Euclid\u2019s Elements, a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics, a commentary on Iamblichus\u2019 work devoted to the Pythagorean sect, an epitome of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics (if the commentary on the De Anima, where one finds a reference to this work, is authentic), and perhaps a commentary on Hermogenes\u2019 Tekhn\u00ea. [conclusion p. 326]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SguvcKAd2fhClm6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":670,"section_of":200,"pages":"295-326","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Simplicius de Cilicie, 2016
By: Goulet, Richard, Coda, Elisa, Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius de Cilicie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2016
Published in	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos
Pages	341-394
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Goulet, Richard , Coda, Elisa
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Philosophe et commentateur néoplatonicien, disciple d’Ammonius à Alexandrie, puis de Damascius à Athènes. La notice a été rédigée par Richard Goulet (informations biographiques et œuvres) et Elisa Coda (In De caelo et In Physica : Simplicius dans la tradition arabe). Par souci de cohérence, la numérotation des références propre à chacune de ces deux parties a été conservée. Simplicius fait depuis quelques dizaines d’années l’objet de vifs débats. Des contributions importantes, faites notamment dans des colloques dont les actes n’ont pas encore été publiés, n’ont pu être prises en compte dans la présente notice. Mme I. Hadot, en collaboration avec Ph. Vallat, a rédigé une longue mise au point (de plus de 160 pages) sur l’ensemble des problèmes soulevés par Simplicius : il est apparu que cette importante contribution ne pouvait pas être publiée sous la forme d’une notice de ce dictionnaire et qu’il était préférable de la faire paraître ailleurs, dans son intégralité et sous son format originel. Son riche contenu ne sera donc malheureusement pas pris en compte dans la rédaction de la présente notice. L’ouvrage est maintenant paru : Ilsetraut Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique. Avec deux contributions de Philippe Vallat, coll. « Academia Philosophical Studies » 48, Sankt Augustin, 2014, 309 p. Des astérisques dans le texte annoncent des ajouts ponctuels dans les compléments du présent tome. [introduction p. 341]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0VMZHkLRvtbfenF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"899","_score":null,"_source":{"id":899,"authors_free":[{"id":1328,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1981,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":143,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coda, Elisa","free_first_name":"Elisa","free_last_name":"Coda","norm_person":{"id":143,"first_name":"Elisa","last_name":"Coda","full_name":"Coda, Elisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168595843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1983,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius de Cilicie","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius de Cilicie"},"abstract":"Philosophe et commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien, disciple d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie, puis de Damascius \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes.\r\n\r\nLa notice a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9e par Richard Goulet (informations biographiques et \u0153uvres) et Elisa Coda (In De caelo et In Physica : Simplicius dans la tradition arabe). Par souci de coh\u00e9rence, la num\u00e9rotation des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences propre \u00e0 chacune de ces deux parties a \u00e9t\u00e9 conserv\u00e9e.\r\n\r\nSimplicius fait depuis quelques dizaines d\u2019ann\u00e9es l\u2019objet de vifs d\u00e9bats. Des contributions importantes, faites notamment dans des colloques dont les actes n\u2019ont pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9s, n\u2019ont pu \u00eatre prises en compte dans la pr\u00e9sente notice. Mme I. Hadot, en collaboration avec Ph. Vallat, a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 une longue mise au point (de plus de 160 pages) sur l\u2019ensemble des probl\u00e8mes soulev\u00e9s par Simplicius : il est apparu que cette importante contribution ne pouvait pas \u00eatre publi\u00e9e sous la forme d\u2019une notice de ce dictionnaire et qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pr\u00e9f\u00e9rable de la faire para\u00eetre ailleurs, dans son int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 et sous son format originel.\r\n\r\nSon riche contenu ne sera donc malheureusement pas pris en compte dans la r\u00e9daction de la pr\u00e9sente notice. L\u2019ouvrage est maintenant paru : Ilsetraut Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique. Avec deux contributions de Philippe Vallat, coll. \u00ab Academia Philosophical Studies \u00bb 48, Sankt Augustin, 2014, 309 p.\r\n\r\nDes ast\u00e9risques dans le texte annoncent des ajouts ponctuels dans les compl\u00e9ments du pr\u00e9sent tome. [introduction p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0VMZHkLRvtbfenF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":143,"full_name":"Coda, Elisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":899,"section_of":375,"pages":"341-394","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":375,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus \u00e0 Tyrs\u00e9nos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1994","abstract":"Rebiew by Udo Hartmann, Institut f\u00fcr Altertumswissenschaften, Friedrich-Schiller-Universit\u00e4t Jena: Der von Richard Goulet herausgegebene Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques geh\u00f6rt zweifellos zu den wichtigsten Projekten auf dem Gebiet der Philosophiegeschichte der Antike in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Mit dem siebenten ist nun der letzte der gewichtigen B\u00e4nde dieses Lexikons erschienen, das in umfassender Weise \u00fcber alle Philosophen der Antike informiert. Seit 1981 arbeiteten zahlreiche Wissenschaftler unter Leitung Goulets an diesem Projekt des CNRS, der erste Band des Lexikons mit dem Buchstaben A wurde dann im Jahr 1989 ver\u00f6ffentlicht. Nunmehr liegen die sieben B\u00e4nde und ein Supplementband (von 2003) des Nachschlagewerks vor, das in teilweise sehr umfangreichen Artikeln alle bezeugten Philosophen von den Vorsokratikern bis zu den Neuplatonikern des 6. Jahrhunderts in biographischen Eintr\u00e4gen in alphabetischer Form \u2013 versehen mit Nummern \u2013 vorstellt. Dabei werden nicht nur die bedeutenden griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Philosophen und ihre Sch\u00fcler, sondern alle Personen aufgenommen, die in den Quellen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 charakterisiert werden, an einer Philosophenschule studiert haben oder im Umfeld von Philosophen t\u00e4tig waren. In diesem Dictionnaire finden sich somit auch zahlreiche weitgehend unbekannte Philosophen und Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen (Sophisten, Mediziner, Mathematiker oder Dichter) sowie alle Personen, die auf Grund ihrer Gelehrsamkeit oder Lebenshaltung in literarischen, epigraphischen und papyrologischen Zeugnissen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 bezeichnet werden. Neben dieser Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit der Erfassung antiker Philosophen beeindruckt das Lexikon auch durch seine Gr\u00fcndlichkeit: Die zumeist hervorragenden Eintr\u00e4ge informieren \u00fcber den Lebenslauf und die Werke der Gelehrten, listen aber auch die Forschungsliteratur zu den Philosophen in enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise auf; die Autoren diskutieren zudem die relevanten Forschungsfragen und besprechen auch die ikonographischen Zeugnisse zu den Gelehrten. Dabei werden sowohl die griechischen und lateinischen Quellen als auch die orientalische \u00dcberlieferung bei syrischen, armenischen, georgischen und arabischen Autoren f\u00fcr den Leser erschlossen. F\u00fcr sehr viele Artikel konnten zudem ausgewiesene Fachleute zum jeweiligen Denker als Autoren gewonnen werden. Zahlreiche qualit\u00e4tsvolle Artikel stammen aber auch aus der Feder Goulets (im vorliegenden siebenten Band sind es 83 Artikel), der sich in unz\u00e4hligen Arbeiten um die Erforschung der antiken Philosophiegeschichte verdient gemacht hat. Der Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques ist somit f\u00fcr alle, die sich mit der Philosophie und dem Bildungswesen der Antike besch\u00e4ftigen, zu einem unverzichtbaren Hilfsmittel geworden.\r\n\r\nUmso erfreulicher ist es, dass nun alle Artikel vorliegen. Auch der letzte Band des Dictionnaire erf\u00fcllt die in ihn gesteckten Erwartungen: In gewohnter Qualit\u00e4t werden hier die Philosophen von U bis Z vorgestellt. Doch bietet der von Goulet sorgf\u00e4ltig redigierte Band weitaus mehr:1 Nach der Liste der Autoren des Bandes und der Abk\u00fcrzungen (S. 9\u201382)2 und einem ersten Lexikonsteil, in dem die Philosophen mit den Anfangsbuchstaben U, V, X und Z aufgef\u00fchrt werden (S. 85\u2013451), folgen im zweiten Teil \u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c (S. 453\u20131018), also Supplementeintr\u00e4ge zu Philosophen von A bis T, die in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden nicht aufgenommen wurden, und Erg\u00e4nzung zu bereits publizierten Artikeln, etwa zu Aristoteles oder Heraklit. Die beiden Anh\u00e4nge im dritten Teil des Bandes (S. 1019\u20131174) stellen die bislang im Dictionnaire noch nicht besprochenen philosophischen Schulen vor: In der sehr knapp gehaltenen und mit nur wenigen Literaturhinweisen versehenen \u201eAnnexe I\u201c bespricht Marco Di Branco Lykeion, Stoa und Epikurs Garten sowie die neuplatonische Schule von Apameia (S. 1019\u20131024), wobei er sich auf die baulichen Strukturen konzentriert und kaum etwas zu den Institutionen sagt; in der umfangreichen \u201eAnnexe II\u201c (\u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c zu P 333. Pythagore de Samos, S. 1025\u20131174) stellt Constantinos Macris die Pythagoreer, ihre Lehren und die pythagoreischen Traditionen bis in die Sp\u00e4tantike sowie das Nachleben bis in die Fr\u00fche Neuzeit vor, wobei Macris in erster Linie die umf\u00e4ngliche Literatur zu den verschiedenen Aspekten zusammenstellt.3\r\n\r\nDen Abschluss des Bandes bildet ein Epimetrum (S. 1175\u20131217), in dem Goulet in Tabellen, Diagrammen und \u00dcbersichten eine statistische Auswertung zu den antiken Philosophen vorlegt. Goulet betrachtet dabei die Zugeh\u00f6rigkeit zu den antiken Philosophenschulen, Herkunft, Ausbildungsort und Geschlecht und analysiert die Angaben auch in der Abfolge der Jahrhunderte. Die Aussagekraft der statistischen Ergebnisse erschlie\u00dft sich dem Leser allerdings nicht immer, da Goulet zumeist keine Interpretation bietet. Was bedeutet es etwa, wenn 19 Prozent aller bekannten Philosophen Platoniker und 8 Prozent Epikureer waren? Was hei\u00dft es, dass mit 105 Inschriften die meisten epigraphischen Zeugnisse f\u00fcr Philosophen aus dem 2. Jahrhundert stammen (gefolgt von 43 im 1. Jahrhundert)? Was bedeutet es, dass unter den Philosophinnen im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. die meisten Frauen Pythagoreerinnen (12) waren (gefolgt von 8 Epikureerinnen im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.)? Die Register (S. 1219\u20131465) erschlie\u00dfen die Eigennamen (und geben \u2013 wenn vorhanden \u2013 den prosopographischen Eintrag fett an), Namen und Begriffe aus den Werktiteln der antiken Philosophen sowie die Kommentare, Paraphrasen und antiken \u00dcbersetzungen zu philosophischen Werken aus allen B\u00e4nden des Dictionnaire. Die drei Register erm\u00f6glichen nun also eine hervorragende Orientierung in diesem umfangreichen Nachschlagewerk.\r\n\r\nIm ersten Teil des siebenten Bandes werden alle bekannten Philosophen von Ulpianos von Gaza (Goulet, U 1, S. 85), einem Kommilitonen des Proklos in Alexandreia, bis zum Plotin-Sch\u00fcler Zotikos (Luc Brisson, Z 44, S. 451) betrachtet. Die umfangreichsten Beitr\u00e4ge sind dabei den bekannten Philosophen gewidmet, so dem sp\u00e4tantiken Platoniker und Theologen Marius Victorinus (Lenka Karf\u00edkov\u00e1, V 14, S. 153\u2013166), zu dem ausf\u00fchrlich die Thesen \u00fcber m\u00f6gliche Einfl\u00fcsse des Plotin, des Porphyrios, der Mittelplatoniker und der Neuplatoniker nach Porphyrios auf sein Denken vorgestellt werden, dem Vorsokratiker Xenophanes (Dominique Arnould \/ Goulet, X 15, S. 211\u2013219), dem Schulhaupt der Akademie Xenokrates (Margherita Isnardi Parente, X 10, S. 194\u2013208), dem Sokratiker Xenophon (Louis-Andr\u00e9 Dorion \/ J\u00f6rn Lang, X 19, S. 227\u2013290), in dessen Eintrag auch der \u201aAlte Oligarch\u2018 kurz besprochen wird, dem Eleaten Zenon (Daniel de Smet, Z 19, S. 346\u2013363) sowie dem Begr\u00fcnder der Stoa, Zenon von Kition (Jean-Baptiste Gourinat \/ Lang, Z 20, S. 364\u2013396). Dan Dana stellt das legend\u00e4re Material zum Geten Zalmoxis, dem Sklaven und Sch\u00fcler des Pythagoras, vor (Z 3, S. 317\u2013322). Aber auch in diesem Band finden sich neben den Philosophen wieder viele Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen: Lange Artikel er\u00f6rtern so Leben und Werk sowie philosophische Beeinflussungen des Universalgelehrten M. Terentius Varro, der in Athen studiert hat (Yves Lehmann, V 5, S. 94\u2013133), des Dichters Vergil (R\u00e9gine Chambert, V 10, S. 136\u2013147), dessen Bildungsweg ausf\u00fchrlich nachgezeichnet wird, des Theologen Zacharias Rhetor (Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Alpi, Z 1, S. 301\u2013308), dessen polemische Schriften gegen pagane Neuplatoniker genauer vorgestellt werden4, sowie des Alchemisten Zosimos von Panopolis (Matteo Martelli, Z 42, 447\u2013450), der auch eine Platon-Vita verfa\u00dft haben soll.5 Neben diesen prominenten Namen vereint der siebente Band aber auch wieder zahlreiche kaum bekannte Philosophen und viele nur an wenigen Stellen in philosophischen Werken erw\u00e4hnte, schattenhafte Gelehrte wie den Skeptiker Xeniades von Korinth (Marie-Odile Goulet-Caz\u00e9, X 4, S. 189f.), den Diadochen Zenodotos an der Athener Schule aus dem sp\u00e4ten 5. Jahrhundert, dessen Scholarchat Goulet jedoch bezweifelt (Z 10, S. 341f.)6, den Juden und Proklos-Sch\u00fcler Zenon von Alexandreia (Goulet, Z 18, S. 345)7 oder den Stoiker Zenothemis, eine erfundene Gestalt aus einem Dialog Lukians (Patrick Robiano, Z 26, S. 417f.). Aufgenommen wurden schlie\u00dflich einige nur epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen und philosophierende Beamte wie der von Goulet als Epikureer gedeutete Ritter und praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae L. Valerius Valerianus signo Dardanius (V 2, S. 89f.)8, der Stoiker P. Avianius Valerius (V 3, S. 90), der laut Bernadette Puech im 2. Jahrhundert im mysischen Hadrianoi wirkte9, der Platoniker Zosimos oder der Athener Stoiker Zosimianos (Puech, Z 41, S. 447; Z 43, S. 450).10\r\n\r\nIm Supplementteil werden ebenfalls einige bekannte Philosophen besprochen, der ausf\u00fchrlichste Beitrag ist indes Pythagoras gewidmet (P 333, S. 681\u2013884): Detailliert er\u00f6rtert Macris hier die biographischen Traditionen \u00fcber Pythagoras vom Zeitgenossen Xenophanes \u00fcber die hellenistischen Viten bis zu Iamblichs Pythagoras-Schrift, die ikonographischen Zeugnisse sowie die Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras\u2019 Leben, Schule und Lehren. Macris erschlie\u00dft zudem in geradezu enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise die Literatur zu allen Aspekten (S. 681\u2013850).11 Erg\u00e4nzt wird diese Beitrag von einer Analyse der gnomologischen Tradition durch Katarzyna Prochenko (S. 851\u2013860) sowie der syrischen und arabischen \u00dcberlieferung durch Anna Izdebska (S. 860\u2013884). Etwas k\u00fcnstlich wirkt indes die Auslagerung der Besprechung der Pythagoreer durch Macris in die bereits erw\u00e4hnte \u201eAnnexe II\u201c, l\u00e4\u00dft sich die Tradition doch kaum scharf in Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras und \u00fcber die Pythagoreer und deren Lehren trennen. Ausf\u00fchrliche Beitr\u00e4ge stellen zudem den Theologen und Exegeten Didymos den Blinden (Marco Zambon, D 106a, S. 485\u2013513), den Theologen Gregor von Nyssa und sein Verh\u00e4ltnis zur Philosophie (Matthieu Cassin, G 34a, S. 534\u2013571), den Pythagoreer Philolaos (Macris, P 143, S. 637\u2013667) und den Sokratiker Simmias von Theben (Macris, S 86, S. 904\u2013933) vor. Aber auch im Supplementteil finden sich viele in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden \u00fcbersehene, wenig bekannte Philosophen, die oft blo\u00dfe Namen bleiben, halblegend\u00e4re Personen wie Themistokleia, eine Priesterin aus Delphi und \u201aLehrerin\u2018 des Pythagoras (Macris, T 39a, S. 963\u2013965), sowie erfundene, literarische Gestalten wie die sicherlich fiktiven Dialogpartner Aigyptos und Euxitheos im Theophrastos des Aineas von Gaza (Goulet, A 59a, S. 456; E 182a, 525).12 Erg\u00e4nzt werden im Supplementteil zudem einige lediglich epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen wie T. Coponius Maximus (Puech, M 72a, S. 607\u2013608), einige philosophieinteressierte Gelehrte wie der Mediziner Magnos von Nisibis (Richard Goulet \/ V\u00e9ronique Boudon-Millot, M 13a, S. 584\u2013588) sowie bildungsbeflissene Beamte wie der comes Orientis Iulianus, den Libanios als Philosoph beschreibt (epist. 1261, 4\u20135; Goulet, I 43a, S. 579), oder der praefectus Augustalis Pentadios (Goulet, P 78a, S. 633).13 Der Sophist und Hermogenes-Kommentator Euagoras wurde von Goulet erg\u00e4nzt, da Syrianus ihn als Philosophen qualifiziert (E 182b, S. 525).14 Bislang unbeachtet blieb in allen Prosopographien der bei Pappos von Alexandreia erw\u00e4hnte \u201aPhilosoph\u2018 Hierios, der im fr\u00fchen 4. Jahrhundert in Alexandreia Mathematik unterrichtete (Goulet, H 119a, S. 578).15 Ob allerdings der auch als Schriftsteller t\u00e4tige Augustus seinen knappen Eintrag im Supplementteil des Philosophenlexikons wirklich verdient hat (Yasmina Benferhat, O 7a, S. 626), kann man sicher bezweifeln.\r\n\r\nAuch der siebente und letzte Band des Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques erfasst somit in hervorragender Weise das Quellenmaterial und die Forschungen zu den Philosophen von U bis Z und bietet im Supplementteil wichtige Erg\u00e4nzungen zu den bislang erschienenen B\u00e4nden, deren Inhalt nun auch durch das umf\u00e4ngliche Gesamtregister erfasst werden kann. Der gut gebundene und relativ preiswerte Band sollte daher in keiner altertumswissenschaftlichen Bibliothek fehlen. Man kann den Autoren der Beitr\u00e4ge und allen voran dem Herausgeber Goulet nur f\u00fcr ihre sorgf\u00e4ltige und hervorragende Arbeit danken, dank der nun nach knapp drei Jahrzehnten ein ausgezeichnetes Nachschlagewerk vorliegt, das die Welt der antiken Philosophen vollst\u00e4ndig erschlie\u00dft.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tuaXpGlzy0XByyW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":375,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine, 2016
By: Opsomer, Jan, Falcon, Andrea (Ed.)

Title	An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity
Pages	341-357
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Translator(s)

Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aCdD22AdndA4ijA

{"_index":"sire","_id":"935","_score":null,"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aCdD22AdndA4ijA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius, 2016
By: Baltussen, Han, Kraus, Christina S. (Ed.), Stray, Christopher (Ed.)

Title	Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre
Pages	173-194
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher
Translator(s)

This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative “corpus” of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a “natural by-product” of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE).

Online Resources

Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, 2016
By: Kraus, Christina S. (Ed.), Stray, Christopher (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"963","_score":null,"_source":{"id":963,"authors_free":[{"id":1445,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1446,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":384,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kraus, Christina S. ","free_first_name":"Christina S.","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":384,"first_name":"Christina S.","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1067516212","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1447,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":385,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stray, Christopher","free_first_name":"Christopher","free_last_name":"Stray","norm_person":{"id":385,"first_name":"Christopher","last_name":"Stray","full_name":"Stray, Christopher","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135638674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"},"abstract":"This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative \u201ccorpus\u201d of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a \u201cnatural by-product\u201d of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE).","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":384,"full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":385,"full_name":"Stray, Christopher","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":963,"section_of":292,"pages":"173-194","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":292,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kraus\/Stray2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":292,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Title	Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher
Translator(s)

This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.

Online Resources

Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity, 2016
By: Falcon, Andrea (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"292","_score":null,"_source":{"id":292,"authors_free":[{"id":2192,"entry_id":292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":384,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kraus, Christina S. ","free_first_name":"Christina S.","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":384,"first_name":"Christina S.","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1067516212","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2193,"entry_id":292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":385,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stray, Christopher","free_first_name":"Christopher","free_last_name":"Stray","norm_person":{"id":385,"first_name":"Christopher","last_name":"Stray","full_name":"Stray, Christopher","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135638674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre","main_title":{"title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre"},"abstract":"This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":384,"full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":385,"full_name":"Stray, Christopher","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":292,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Title	Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Translator(s)

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle’s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TjdS065EwQq3iWS

{"_index":"sire","_id":"304","_score":null,"_source":{"id":304,"authors_free":[{"id":379,"entry_id":304,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico, 2016
By: Vitale, Angelo Maria (Ed.), Boriello, Maria (Ed.)

Title	Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico
Type	Edited Book
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Publication Place	Rom
Publisher	Città Nuova
Series	Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Vitale, Angelo Maria , Boriello, Maria
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"343","_score":null,"_source":{"id":343,"authors_free":[{"id":444,"entry_id":343,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":249,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Vitale, Angelo Maria","free_first_name":"Angelo Maria","free_last_name":"Vitale","norm_person":{"id":249,"first_name":"Angelo Maria","last_name":"Vitale","full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071335952","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2078,"entry_id":343,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":248,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boriello, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Boriello","norm_person":{"id":248,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Boriello","full_name":"Boriello, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1148023100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","main_title":{"title":"Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":249,"full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":248,"full_name":"Boriello, Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":343,"pubplace":"Rom","publisher":"Citt\u00e0 Nuova","series":"Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos, 2016
By: Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2016
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	CNRS Éditions
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Rebiew by Udo Hartmann, Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena: Der von Richard Goulet herausgegebene Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques gehört zweifellos zu den wichtigsten Projekten auf dem Gebiet der Philosophiegeschichte der Antike in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Mit dem siebenten ist nun der letzte der gewichtigen Bände dieses Lexikons erschienen, das in umfassender Weise über alle Philosophen der Antike informiert. Seit 1981 arbeiteten zahlreiche Wissenschaftler unter Leitung Goulets an diesem Projekt des CNRS, der erste Band des Lexikons mit dem Buchstaben A wurde dann im Jahr 1989 veröffentlicht. Nunmehr liegen die sieben Bände und ein Supplementband (von 2003) des Nachschlagewerks vor, das in teilweise sehr umfangreichen Artikeln alle bezeugten Philosophen von den Vorsokratikern bis zu den Neuplatonikern des 6. Jahrhunderts in biographischen Einträgen in alphabetischer Form – versehen mit Nummern – vorstellt. Dabei werden nicht nur die bedeutenden griechischen und römischen Philosophen und ihre Schüler, sondern alle Personen aufgenommen, die in den Quellen als ‚Philosophen‘ charakterisiert werden, an einer Philosophenschule studiert haben oder im Umfeld von Philosophen tätig waren. In diesem Dictionnaire finden sich somit auch zahlreiche weitgehend unbekannte Philosophen und Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen (Sophisten, Mediziner, Mathematiker oder Dichter) sowie alle Personen, die auf Grund ihrer Gelehrsamkeit oder Lebenshaltung in literarischen, epigraphischen und papyrologischen Zeugnissen als ‚Philosophen‘ bezeichnet werden. Neben dieser Vollständigkeit der Erfassung antiker Philosophen beeindruckt das Lexikon auch durch seine Gründlichkeit: Die zumeist hervorragenden Einträge informieren über den Lebenslauf und die Werke der Gelehrten, listen aber auch die Forschungsliteratur zu den Philosophen in enzyklopädischer Weise auf; die Autoren diskutieren zudem die relevanten Forschungsfragen und besprechen auch die ikonographischen Zeugnisse zu den Gelehrten. Dabei werden sowohl die griechischen und lateinischen Quellen als auch die orientalische Überlieferung bei syrischen, armenischen, georgischen und arabischen Autoren für den Leser erschlossen. Für sehr viele Artikel konnten zudem ausgewiesene Fachleute zum jeweiligen Denker als Autoren gewonnen werden. Zahlreiche qualitätsvolle Artikel stammen aber auch aus der Feder Goulets (im vorliegenden siebenten Band sind es 83 Artikel), der sich in unzähligen Arbeiten um die Erforschung der antiken Philosophiegeschichte verdient gemacht hat. Der Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques ist somit für alle, die sich mit der Philosophie und dem Bildungswesen der Antike beschäftigen, zu einem unverzichtbaren Hilfsmittel geworden. Umso erfreulicher ist es, dass nun alle Artikel vorliegen. Auch der letzte Band des Dictionnaire erfüllt die in ihn gesteckten Erwartungen: In gewohnter Qualität werden hier die Philosophen von U bis Z vorgestellt. Doch bietet der von Goulet sorgfältig redigierte Band weitaus mehr:1 Nach der Liste der Autoren des Bandes und der Abkürzungen (S. 9–82)2 und einem ersten Lexikonsteil, in dem die Philosophen mit den Anfangsbuchstaben U, V, X und Z aufgeführt werden (S. 85–451), folgen im zweiten Teil „Compléments“ (S. 453–1018), also Supplementeinträge zu Philosophen von A bis T, die in den früheren Bänden nicht aufgenommen wurden, und Ergänzung zu bereits publizierten Artikeln, etwa zu Aristoteles oder Heraklit. Die beiden Anhänge im dritten Teil des Bandes (S. 1019–1174) stellen die bislang im Dictionnaire noch nicht besprochenen philosophischen Schulen vor: In der sehr knapp gehaltenen und mit nur wenigen Literaturhinweisen versehenen „Annexe I“ bespricht Marco Di Branco Lykeion, Stoa und Epikurs Garten sowie die neuplatonische Schule von Apameia (S. 1019–1024), wobei er sich auf die baulichen Strukturen konzentriert und kaum etwas zu den Institutionen sagt; in der umfangreichen „Annexe II“ („Compléments“ zu P 333. Pythagore de Samos, S. 1025–1174) stellt Constantinos Macris die Pythagoreer, ihre Lehren und die pythagoreischen Traditionen bis in die Spätantike sowie das Nachleben bis in die Frühe Neuzeit vor, wobei Macris in erster Linie die umfängliche Literatur zu den verschiedenen Aspekten zusammenstellt.3 Den Abschluss des Bandes bildet ein Epimetrum (S. 1175–1217), in dem Goulet in Tabellen, Diagrammen und Übersichten eine statistische Auswertung zu den antiken Philosophen vorlegt. Goulet betrachtet dabei die Zugehörigkeit zu den antiken Philosophenschulen, Herkunft, Ausbildungsort und Geschlecht und analysiert die Angaben auch in der Abfolge der Jahrhunderte. Die Aussagekraft der statistischen Ergebnisse erschließt sich dem Leser allerdings nicht immer, da Goulet zumeist keine Interpretation bietet. Was bedeutet es etwa, wenn 19 Prozent aller bekannten Philosophen Platoniker und 8 Prozent Epikureer waren? Was heißt es, dass mit 105 Inschriften die meisten epigraphischen Zeugnisse für Philosophen aus dem 2. Jahrhundert stammen (gefolgt von 43 im 1. Jahrhundert)? Was bedeutet es, dass unter den Philosophinnen im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. die meisten Frauen Pythagoreerinnen (12) waren (gefolgt von 8 Epikureerinnen im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.)? Die Register (S. 1219–1465) erschließen die Eigennamen (und geben – wenn vorhanden – den prosopographischen Eintrag fett an), Namen und Begriffe aus den Werktiteln der antiken Philosophen sowie die Kommentare, Paraphrasen und antiken Übersetzungen zu philosophischen Werken aus allen Bänden des Dictionnaire. Die drei Register ermöglichen nun also eine hervorragende Orientierung in diesem umfangreichen Nachschlagewerk. Im ersten Teil des siebenten Bandes werden alle bekannten Philosophen von Ulpianos von Gaza (Goulet, U 1, S. 85), einem Kommilitonen des Proklos in Alexandreia, bis zum Plotin-Schüler Zotikos (Luc Brisson, Z 44, S. 451) betrachtet. Die umfangreichsten Beiträge sind dabei den bekannten Philosophen gewidmet, so dem spätantiken Platoniker und Theologen Marius Victorinus (Lenka Karfíková, V 14, S. 153–166), zu dem ausführlich die Thesen über mögliche Einflüsse des Plotin, des Porphyrios, der Mittelplatoniker und der Neuplatoniker nach Porphyrios auf sein Denken vorgestellt werden, dem Vorsokratiker Xenophanes (Dominique Arnould / Goulet, X 15, S. 211–219), dem Schulhaupt der Akademie Xenokrates (Margherita Isnardi Parente, X 10, S. 194–208), dem Sokratiker Xenophon (Louis-André Dorion / Jörn Lang, X 19, S. 227–290), in dessen Eintrag auch der ‚Alte Oligarch‘ kurz besprochen wird, dem Eleaten Zenon (Daniel de Smet, Z 19, S. 346–363) sowie dem Begründer der Stoa, Zenon von Kition (Jean-Baptiste Gourinat / Lang, Z 20, S. 364–396). Dan Dana stellt das legendäre Material zum Geten Zalmoxis, dem Sklaven und Schüler des Pythagoras, vor (Z 3, S. 317–322). Aber auch in diesem Band finden sich neben den Philosophen wieder viele Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen: Lange Artikel erörtern so Leben und Werk sowie philosophische Beeinflussungen des Universalgelehrten M. Terentius Varro, der in Athen studiert hat (Yves Lehmann, V 5, S. 94–133), des Dichters Vergil (Régine Chambert, V 10, S. 136–147), dessen Bildungsweg ausführlich nachgezeichnet wird, des Theologen Zacharias Rhetor (Frédéric Alpi, Z 1, S. 301–308), dessen polemische Schriften gegen pagane Neuplatoniker genauer vorgestellt werden4, sowie des Alchemisten Zosimos von Panopolis (Matteo Martelli, Z 42, 447–450), der auch eine Platon-Vita verfaßt haben soll.5 Neben diesen prominenten Namen vereint der siebente Band aber auch wieder zahlreiche kaum bekannte Philosophen und viele nur an wenigen Stellen in philosophischen Werken erwähnte, schattenhafte Gelehrte wie den Skeptiker Xeniades von Korinth (Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, X 4, S. 189f.), den Diadochen Zenodotos an der Athener Schule aus dem späten 5. Jahrhundert, dessen Scholarchat Goulet jedoch bezweifelt (Z 10, S. 341f.)6, den Juden und Proklos-Schüler Zenon von Alexandreia (Goulet, Z 18, S. 345)7 oder den Stoiker Zenothemis, eine erfundene Gestalt aus einem Dialog Lukians (Patrick Robiano, Z 26, S. 417f.). Aufgenommen wurden schließlich einige nur epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen und philosophierende Beamte wie der von Goulet als Epikureer gedeutete Ritter und praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae L. Valerius Valerianus signo Dardanius (V 2, S. 89f.)8, der Stoiker P. Avianius Valerius (V 3, S. 90), der laut Bernadette Puech im 2. Jahrhundert im mysischen Hadrianoi wirkte9, der Platoniker Zosimos oder der Athener Stoiker Zosimianos (Puech, Z 41, S. 447; Z 43, S. 450).10 Im Supplementteil werden ebenfalls einige bekannte Philosophen besprochen, der ausführlichste Beitrag ist indes Pythagoras gewidmet (P 333, S. 681–884): Detailliert erörtert Macris hier die biographischen Traditionen über Pythagoras vom Zeitgenossen Xenophanes über die hellenistischen Viten bis zu Iamblichs Pythagoras-Schrift, die ikonographischen Zeugnisse sowie die Berichte über Pythagoras’ Leben, Schule und Lehren. Macris erschließt zudem in geradezu enzyklopädischer Weise die Literatur zu allen Aspekten (S. 681–850).11 Ergänzt wird diese Beitrag von einer Analyse der gnomologischen Tradition durch Katarzyna Prochenko (S. 851–860) sowie der syrischen und arabischen Überlieferung durch Anna Izdebska (S. 860–884). Etwas künstlich wirkt indes die Auslagerung der Besprechung der Pythagoreer durch Macris in die bereits erwähnte „Annexe II“, läßt sich die Tradition doch kaum scharf in Berichte über Pythagoras und über die Pythagoreer und deren Lehren trennen. Ausführliche Beiträge stellen zudem den Theologen und Exegeten Didymos den Blinden (Marco Zambon, D 106a, S. 485–513), den Theologen Gregor von Nyssa und sein Verhältnis zur Philosophie (Matthieu Cassin, G 34a, S. 534–571), den Pythagoreer Philolaos (Macris, P 143, S. 637–667) und den Sokratiker Simmias von Theben (Macris, S 86, S. 904–933) vor. Aber auch im Supplementteil finden sich viele in den früheren Bänden übersehene, wenig bekannte Philosophen, die oft bloße Namen bleiben, halblegendäre Personen wie Themistokleia, eine Priesterin aus Delphi und ‚Lehrerin‘ des Pythagoras (Macris, T 39a, S. 963–965), sowie erfundene, literarische Gestalten wie die sicherlich fiktiven Dialogpartner Aigyptos und Euxitheos im Theophrastos des Aineas von Gaza (Goulet, A 59a, S. 456; E 182a, 525).12 Ergänzt werden im Supplementteil zudem einige lediglich epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen wie T. Coponius Maximus (Puech, M 72a, S. 607–608), einige philosophieinteressierte Gelehrte wie der Mediziner Magnos von Nisibis (Richard Goulet / Véronique Boudon-Millot, M 13a, S. 584–588) sowie bildungsbeflissene Beamte wie der comes Orientis Iulianus, den Libanios als Philosoph beschreibt (epist. 1261, 4–5; Goulet, I 43a, S. 579), oder der praefectus Augustalis Pentadios (Goulet, P 78a, S. 633).13 Der Sophist und Hermogenes-Kommentator Euagoras wurde von Goulet ergänzt, da Syrianus ihn als Philosophen qualifiziert (E 182b, S. 525).14 Bislang unbeachtet blieb in allen Prosopographien der bei Pappos von Alexandreia erwähnte ‚Philosoph‘ Hierios, der im frühen 4. Jahrhundert in Alexandreia Mathematik unterrichtete (Goulet, H 119a, S. 578).15 Ob allerdings der auch als Schriftsteller tätige Augustus seinen knappen Eintrag im Supplementteil des Philosophenlexikons wirklich verdient hat (Yasmina Benferhat, O 7a, S. 626), kann man sicher bezweifeln. Auch der siebente und letzte Band des Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques erfasst somit in hervorragender Weise das Quellenmaterial und die Forschungen zu den Philosophen von U bis Z und bietet im Supplementteil wichtige Ergänzungen zu den bislang erschienenen Bänden, deren Inhalt nun auch durch das umfängliche Gesamtregister erfasst werden kann. Der gut gebundene und relativ preiswerte Band sollte daher in keiner altertumswissenschaftlichen Bibliothek fehlen. Man kann den Autoren der Beiträge und allen voran dem Herausgeber Goulet nur für ihre sorgfältige und hervorragende Arbeit danken, dank der nun nach knapp drei Jahrzehnten ein ausgezeichnetes Nachschlagewerk vorliegt, das die Welt der antiken Philosophen vollständig erschließt.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tuaXpGlzy0XByyW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"375","_score":null,"_source":{"id":375,"authors_free":[{"id":1982,"entry_id":375,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus \u00e0 Tyrs\u00e9nos","main_title":{"title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus \u00e0 Tyrs\u00e9nos"},"abstract":"Rebiew by Udo Hartmann, Institut f\u00fcr Altertumswissenschaften, Friedrich-Schiller-Universit\u00e4t Jena: Der von Richard Goulet herausgegebene Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques geh\u00f6rt zweifellos zu den wichtigsten Projekten auf dem Gebiet der Philosophiegeschichte der Antike in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Mit dem siebenten ist nun der letzte der gewichtigen B\u00e4nde dieses Lexikons erschienen, das in umfassender Weise \u00fcber alle Philosophen der Antike informiert. Seit 1981 arbeiteten zahlreiche Wissenschaftler unter Leitung Goulets an diesem Projekt des CNRS, der erste Band des Lexikons mit dem Buchstaben A wurde dann im Jahr 1989 ver\u00f6ffentlicht. Nunmehr liegen die sieben B\u00e4nde und ein Supplementband (von 2003) des Nachschlagewerks vor, das in teilweise sehr umfangreichen Artikeln alle bezeugten Philosophen von den Vorsokratikern bis zu den Neuplatonikern des 6. Jahrhunderts in biographischen Eintr\u00e4gen in alphabetischer Form \u2013 versehen mit Nummern \u2013 vorstellt. Dabei werden nicht nur die bedeutenden griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Philosophen und ihre Sch\u00fcler, sondern alle Personen aufgenommen, die in den Quellen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 charakterisiert werden, an einer Philosophenschule studiert haben oder im Umfeld von Philosophen t\u00e4tig waren. In diesem Dictionnaire finden sich somit auch zahlreiche weitgehend unbekannte Philosophen und Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen (Sophisten, Mediziner, Mathematiker oder Dichter) sowie alle Personen, die auf Grund ihrer Gelehrsamkeit oder Lebenshaltung in literarischen, epigraphischen und papyrologischen Zeugnissen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 bezeichnet werden. Neben dieser Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit der Erfassung antiker Philosophen beeindruckt das Lexikon auch durch seine Gr\u00fcndlichkeit: Die zumeist hervorragenden Eintr\u00e4ge informieren \u00fcber den Lebenslauf und die Werke der Gelehrten, listen aber auch die Forschungsliteratur zu den Philosophen in enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise auf; die Autoren diskutieren zudem die relevanten Forschungsfragen und besprechen auch die ikonographischen Zeugnisse zu den Gelehrten. Dabei werden sowohl die griechischen und lateinischen Quellen als auch die orientalische \u00dcberlieferung bei syrischen, armenischen, georgischen und arabischen Autoren f\u00fcr den Leser erschlossen. F\u00fcr sehr viele Artikel konnten zudem ausgewiesene Fachleute zum jeweiligen Denker als Autoren gewonnen werden. Zahlreiche qualit\u00e4tsvolle Artikel stammen aber auch aus der Feder Goulets (im vorliegenden siebenten Band sind es 83 Artikel), der sich in unz\u00e4hligen Arbeiten um die Erforschung der antiken Philosophiegeschichte verdient gemacht hat. Der Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques ist somit f\u00fcr alle, die sich mit der Philosophie und dem Bildungswesen der Antike besch\u00e4ftigen, zu einem unverzichtbaren Hilfsmittel geworden.\r\n\r\nUmso erfreulicher ist es, dass nun alle Artikel vorliegen. Auch der letzte Band des Dictionnaire erf\u00fcllt die in ihn gesteckten Erwartungen: In gewohnter Qualit\u00e4t werden hier die Philosophen von U bis Z vorgestellt. Doch bietet der von Goulet sorgf\u00e4ltig redigierte Band weitaus mehr:1 Nach der Liste der Autoren des Bandes und der Abk\u00fcrzungen (S. 9\u201382)2 und einem ersten Lexikonsteil, in dem die Philosophen mit den Anfangsbuchstaben U, V, X und Z aufgef\u00fchrt werden (S. 85\u2013451), folgen im zweiten Teil \u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c (S. 453\u20131018), also Supplementeintr\u00e4ge zu Philosophen von A bis T, die in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden nicht aufgenommen wurden, und Erg\u00e4nzung zu bereits publizierten Artikeln, etwa zu Aristoteles oder Heraklit. Die beiden Anh\u00e4nge im dritten Teil des Bandes (S. 1019\u20131174) stellen die bislang im Dictionnaire noch nicht besprochenen philosophischen Schulen vor: In der sehr knapp gehaltenen und mit nur wenigen Literaturhinweisen versehenen \u201eAnnexe I\u201c bespricht Marco Di Branco Lykeion, Stoa und Epikurs Garten sowie die neuplatonische Schule von Apameia (S. 1019\u20131024), wobei er sich auf die baulichen Strukturen konzentriert und kaum etwas zu den Institutionen sagt; in der umfangreichen \u201eAnnexe II\u201c (\u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c zu P 333. Pythagore de Samos, S. 1025\u20131174) stellt Constantinos Macris die Pythagoreer, ihre Lehren und die pythagoreischen Traditionen bis in die Sp\u00e4tantike sowie das Nachleben bis in die Fr\u00fche Neuzeit vor, wobei Macris in erster Linie die umf\u00e4ngliche Literatur zu den verschiedenen Aspekten zusammenstellt.3\r\n\r\nDen Abschluss des Bandes bildet ein Epimetrum (S. 1175\u20131217), in dem Goulet in Tabellen, Diagrammen und \u00dcbersichten eine statistische Auswertung zu den antiken Philosophen vorlegt. Goulet betrachtet dabei die Zugeh\u00f6rigkeit zu den antiken Philosophenschulen, Herkunft, Ausbildungsort und Geschlecht und analysiert die Angaben auch in der Abfolge der Jahrhunderte. Die Aussagekraft der statistischen Ergebnisse erschlie\u00dft sich dem Leser allerdings nicht immer, da Goulet zumeist keine Interpretation bietet. Was bedeutet es etwa, wenn 19 Prozent aller bekannten Philosophen Platoniker und 8 Prozent Epikureer waren? Was hei\u00dft es, dass mit 105 Inschriften die meisten epigraphischen Zeugnisse f\u00fcr Philosophen aus dem 2. Jahrhundert stammen (gefolgt von 43 im 1. Jahrhundert)? Was bedeutet es, dass unter den Philosophinnen im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. die meisten Frauen Pythagoreerinnen (12) waren (gefolgt von 8 Epikureerinnen im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.)? Die Register (S. 1219\u20131465) erschlie\u00dfen die Eigennamen (und geben \u2013 wenn vorhanden \u2013 den prosopographischen Eintrag fett an), Namen und Begriffe aus den Werktiteln der antiken Philosophen sowie die Kommentare, Paraphrasen und antiken \u00dcbersetzungen zu philosophischen Werken aus allen B\u00e4nden des Dictionnaire. Die drei Register erm\u00f6glichen nun also eine hervorragende Orientierung in diesem umfangreichen Nachschlagewerk.\r\n\r\nIm ersten Teil des siebenten Bandes werden alle bekannten Philosophen von Ulpianos von Gaza (Goulet, U 1, S. 85), einem Kommilitonen des Proklos in Alexandreia, bis zum Plotin-Sch\u00fcler Zotikos (Luc Brisson, Z 44, S. 451) betrachtet. Die umfangreichsten Beitr\u00e4ge sind dabei den bekannten Philosophen gewidmet, so dem sp\u00e4tantiken Platoniker und Theologen Marius Victorinus (Lenka Karf\u00edkov\u00e1, V 14, S. 153\u2013166), zu dem ausf\u00fchrlich die Thesen \u00fcber m\u00f6gliche Einfl\u00fcsse des Plotin, des Porphyrios, der Mittelplatoniker und der Neuplatoniker nach Porphyrios auf sein Denken vorgestellt werden, dem Vorsokratiker Xenophanes (Dominique Arnould \/ Goulet, X 15, S. 211\u2013219), dem Schulhaupt der Akademie Xenokrates (Margherita Isnardi Parente, X 10, S. 194\u2013208), dem Sokratiker Xenophon (Louis-Andr\u00e9 Dorion \/ J\u00f6rn Lang, X 19, S. 227\u2013290), in dessen Eintrag auch der \u201aAlte Oligarch\u2018 kurz besprochen wird, dem Eleaten Zenon (Daniel de Smet, Z 19, S. 346\u2013363) sowie dem Begr\u00fcnder der Stoa, Zenon von Kition (Jean-Baptiste Gourinat \/ Lang, Z 20, S. 364\u2013396). Dan Dana stellt das legend\u00e4re Material zum Geten Zalmoxis, dem Sklaven und Sch\u00fcler des Pythagoras, vor (Z 3, S. 317\u2013322). Aber auch in diesem Band finden sich neben den Philosophen wieder viele Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen: Lange Artikel er\u00f6rtern so Leben und Werk sowie philosophische Beeinflussungen des Universalgelehrten M. Terentius Varro, der in Athen studiert hat (Yves Lehmann, V 5, S. 94\u2013133), des Dichters Vergil (R\u00e9gine Chambert, V 10, S. 136\u2013147), dessen Bildungsweg ausf\u00fchrlich nachgezeichnet wird, des Theologen Zacharias Rhetor (Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Alpi, Z 1, S. 301\u2013308), dessen polemische Schriften gegen pagane Neuplatoniker genauer vorgestellt werden4, sowie des Alchemisten Zosimos von Panopolis (Matteo Martelli, Z 42, 447\u2013450), der auch eine Platon-Vita verfa\u00dft haben soll.5 Neben diesen prominenten Namen vereint der siebente Band aber auch wieder zahlreiche kaum bekannte Philosophen und viele nur an wenigen Stellen in philosophischen Werken erw\u00e4hnte, schattenhafte Gelehrte wie den Skeptiker Xeniades von Korinth (Marie-Odile Goulet-Caz\u00e9, X 4, S. 189f.), den Diadochen Zenodotos an der Athener Schule aus dem sp\u00e4ten 5. Jahrhundert, dessen Scholarchat Goulet jedoch bezweifelt (Z 10, S. 341f.)6, den Juden und Proklos-Sch\u00fcler Zenon von Alexandreia (Goulet, Z 18, S. 345)7 oder den Stoiker Zenothemis, eine erfundene Gestalt aus einem Dialog Lukians (Patrick Robiano, Z 26, S. 417f.). Aufgenommen wurden schlie\u00dflich einige nur epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen und philosophierende Beamte wie der von Goulet als Epikureer gedeutete Ritter und praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae L. Valerius Valerianus signo Dardanius (V 2, S. 89f.)8, der Stoiker P. Avianius Valerius (V 3, S. 90), der laut Bernadette Puech im 2. Jahrhundert im mysischen Hadrianoi wirkte9, der Platoniker Zosimos oder der Athener Stoiker Zosimianos (Puech, Z 41, S. 447; Z 43, S. 450).10\r\n\r\nIm Supplementteil werden ebenfalls einige bekannte Philosophen besprochen, der ausf\u00fchrlichste Beitrag ist indes Pythagoras gewidmet (P 333, S. 681\u2013884): Detailliert er\u00f6rtert Macris hier die biographischen Traditionen \u00fcber Pythagoras vom Zeitgenossen Xenophanes \u00fcber die hellenistischen Viten bis zu Iamblichs Pythagoras-Schrift, die ikonographischen Zeugnisse sowie die Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras\u2019 Leben, Schule und Lehren. Macris erschlie\u00dft zudem in geradezu enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise die Literatur zu allen Aspekten (S. 681\u2013850).11 Erg\u00e4nzt wird diese Beitrag von einer Analyse der gnomologischen Tradition durch Katarzyna Prochenko (S. 851\u2013860) sowie der syrischen und arabischen \u00dcberlieferung durch Anna Izdebska (S. 860\u2013884). Etwas k\u00fcnstlich wirkt indes die Auslagerung der Besprechung der Pythagoreer durch Macris in die bereits erw\u00e4hnte \u201eAnnexe II\u201c, l\u00e4\u00dft sich die Tradition doch kaum scharf in Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras und \u00fcber die Pythagoreer und deren Lehren trennen. Ausf\u00fchrliche Beitr\u00e4ge stellen zudem den Theologen und Exegeten Didymos den Blinden (Marco Zambon, D 106a, S. 485\u2013513), den Theologen Gregor von Nyssa und sein Verh\u00e4ltnis zur Philosophie (Matthieu Cassin, G 34a, S. 534\u2013571), den Pythagoreer Philolaos (Macris, P 143, S. 637\u2013667) und den Sokratiker Simmias von Theben (Macris, S 86, S. 904\u2013933) vor. Aber auch im Supplementteil finden sich viele in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden \u00fcbersehene, wenig bekannte Philosophen, die oft blo\u00dfe Namen bleiben, halblegend\u00e4re Personen wie Themistokleia, eine Priesterin aus Delphi und \u201aLehrerin\u2018 des Pythagoras (Macris, T 39a, S. 963\u2013965), sowie erfundene, literarische Gestalten wie die sicherlich fiktiven Dialogpartner Aigyptos und Euxitheos im Theophrastos des Aineas von Gaza (Goulet, A 59a, S. 456; E 182a, 525).12 Erg\u00e4nzt werden im Supplementteil zudem einige lediglich epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen wie T. Coponius Maximus (Puech, M 72a, S. 607\u2013608), einige philosophieinteressierte Gelehrte wie der Mediziner Magnos von Nisibis (Richard Goulet \/ V\u00e9ronique Boudon-Millot, M 13a, S. 584\u2013588) sowie bildungsbeflissene Beamte wie der comes Orientis Iulianus, den Libanios als Philosoph beschreibt (epist. 1261, 4\u20135; Goulet, I 43a, S. 579), oder der praefectus Augustalis Pentadios (Goulet, P 78a, S. 633).13 Der Sophist und Hermogenes-Kommentator Euagoras wurde von Goulet erg\u00e4nzt, da Syrianus ihn als Philosophen qualifiziert (E 182b, S. 525).14 Bislang unbeachtet blieb in allen Prosopographien der bei Pappos von Alexandreia erw\u00e4hnte \u201aPhilosoph\u2018 Hierios, der im fr\u00fchen 4. Jahrhundert in Alexandreia Mathematik unterrichtete (Goulet, H 119a, S. 578).15 Ob allerdings der auch als Schriftsteller t\u00e4tige Augustus seinen knappen Eintrag im Supplementteil des Philosophenlexikons wirklich verdient hat (Yasmina Benferhat, O 7a, S. 626), kann man sicher bezweifeln.\r\n\r\nAuch der siebente und letzte Band des Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques erfasst somit in hervorragender Weise das Quellenmaterial und die Forschungen zu den Philosophen von U bis Z und bietet im Supplementteil wichtige Erg\u00e4nzungen zu den bislang erschienenen B\u00e4nden, deren Inhalt nun auch durch das umf\u00e4ngliche Gesamtregister erfasst werden kann. Der gut gebundene und relativ preiswerte Band sollte daher in keiner altertumswissenschaftlichen Bibliothek fehlen. Man kann den Autoren der Beitr\u00e4ge und allen voran dem Herausgeber Goulet nur f\u00fcr ihre sorgf\u00e4ltige und hervorragende Arbeit danken, dank der nun nach knapp drei Jahrzehnten ein ausgezeichnetes Nachschlagewerk vorliegt, das die Welt der antiken Philosophen vollst\u00e4ndig erschlie\u00dft.","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tuaXpGlzy0XByyW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":375,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified, 2016
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Méthexis
Volume	28
Pages	111-140
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same commentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the assumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DTcssHAheWWZmpg

{"_index":"sire","_id":"387","_score":null,"_source":{"id":387,"authors_free":[{"id":506,"entry_id":387,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified"},"abstract":"Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same com\u00admentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the as\u00adsumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DTcssHAheWWZmpg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":387,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"28","issue":"","pages":"111-140"}},"sort":[2016]}

Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio, 2016
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano, Boriello, Maria (Ed.), Vitale, Angelo Maria (Ed.)

Title	Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Published in	Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico
Pages	171-188
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)	Boriello, Maria , Vitale, Angelo Maria
Translator(s)

È bene trarre a questo punto qualche considerazione conclusiva da quanto detto in questo studio, nel quale spero di avere sufficientemente mostrato il peso e il valore che Platone riveste in Simplicio a correzione del modo in cui il rapporto essere-uno viene discusso criticamente da Aristotele in Phys. 1,2. Il contributo teorico di Simplicio pare sostanziarsi sia nel reperimento, nel Parmenide, di quella che secondo lui è la nozione eleatica di essere-uno, sia nella precisazione che in tale dialogo si trova anche una nozione di uno superiore all’essere, l’uno che non è. Tale nozione si ritroverebbe anche nel Sofista sotto forma di critica di Platone alla posizione dei filosofi monisti. Il Parmenide e il Sofista sarebbero, quindi, i dialoghi in cui Platone avrebbe risolto l’aporia dell’uni-molteplicità sia nell’ambito del sensibile che in quello dell’intelligibile. Questa rielaborazione di Platone, la quale richiama in maniera implicita la storia delle esegesi neoplatoniche del Parmenide, costituirebbe verosimilmente un indizio della rielaborazione neoplatonica del platonismo a cui Simplicio fornisce il suo contributo, ovvero di un platonismo che (eccezione fatta, forse, per il solo Porfirio), da Plotino in poi, reca in sé le tracce precise della svolta meontologica operata da quest’ultimo. Se Aristotele ha risolto l’aporia dell’uno e dei molti sul piano sensibile, pensa Simplicio, facendo coesistere l’unità della sostanza (la quale garantisce l’unità dell’intero in virtù del suo sussistere per sé) e la molteplicità degli accidenti (che invece non sussistono per sé), Platone ha invece affrontato e risolto l’aporia sotto un duplice profilo, sensibile (Parmenide) e intelligibile (Sofista) a un tempo. Anche a proposito della soluzione all’aporia dell’uno e dei molti, Simplicio tende, dunque, ad analizzare la posizione di Aristotele alla luce di quella di Platone e in subordine a questa, o perlomeno intendendo questa come completiva di quella, analogamente a quanto si è visto in riferimento alla querelle sugli Eleati. Anche a proposito di quest’ultima Simplicio si mostra lettore attento, quando è possibile aderente ad Aristotele, che era considerato da tutti i neoplatonici filosofo di straordinario ingegno, ma senza mai dimenticare che la somma auctoritas spetta senza dubbio a Platone, in linea con un atteggiamento ermeneutico, risalente almeno a Porfirio, che è conciliarista ma in un rapporto decisamente asimmetrico, dal momento che è solo Platone, per Simplicio come per tutti i platonici d’ogni tempo, l’unico vero princeps philosophorum. [conclusion 187–188]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o07B1GK3GIK7dVY

{"_index":"sire","_id":"403","_score":null,"_source":{"id":403,"authors_free":[{"id":538,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":539,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":248,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boriello, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Boriello","norm_person":{"id":248,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Boriello","full_name":"Boriello, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1148023100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2079,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":249,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","free_first_name":"Angelo Maria","free_last_name":"Vitale","norm_person":{"id":249,"first_name":"Angelo Maria","last_name":"Vitale","full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071335952","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio"},"abstract":"\u00c8 bene trarre a questo punto qualche considerazione conclusiva da quanto detto in questo studio, nel quale spero di avere sufficientemente mostrato il peso e il valore che Platone riveste in Simplicio a correzione del modo in cui il rapporto essere-uno viene discusso criticamente da Aristotele in Phys. 1,2. Il contributo teorico di Simplicio pare sostanziarsi sia nel reperimento, nel Parmenide, di quella che secondo lui \u00e8 la nozione eleatica di essere-uno, sia nella precisazione che in tale dialogo si trova anche una nozione di uno superiore all\u2019essere, l\u2019uno che non \u00e8. Tale nozione si ritroverebbe anche nel Sofista sotto forma di critica di Platone alla posizione dei filosofi monisti.\r\n\r\nIl Parmenide e il Sofista sarebbero, quindi, i dialoghi in cui Platone avrebbe risolto l\u2019aporia dell\u2019uni-molteplicit\u00e0 sia nell\u2019ambito del sensibile che in quello dell\u2019intelligibile. Questa rielaborazione di Platone, la quale richiama in maniera implicita la storia delle esegesi neoplatoniche del Parmenide, costituirebbe verosimilmente un indizio della rielaborazione neoplatonica del platonismo a cui Simplicio fornisce il suo contributo, ovvero di un platonismo che (eccezione fatta, forse, per il solo Porfirio), da Plotino in poi, reca in s\u00e9 le tracce precise della svolta meontologica operata da quest\u2019ultimo.\r\n\r\nSe Aristotele ha risolto l\u2019aporia dell\u2019uno e dei molti sul piano sensibile, pensa Simplicio, facendo coesistere l\u2019unit\u00e0 della sostanza (la quale garantisce l\u2019unit\u00e0 dell\u2019intero in virt\u00f9 del suo sussistere per s\u00e9) e la molteplicit\u00e0 degli accidenti (che invece non sussistono per s\u00e9), Platone ha invece affrontato e risolto l\u2019aporia sotto un duplice profilo, sensibile (Parmenide) e intelligibile (Sofista) a un tempo. Anche a proposito della soluzione all\u2019aporia dell\u2019uno e dei molti, Simplicio tende, dunque, ad analizzare la posizione di Aristotele alla luce di quella di Platone e in subordine a questa, o perlomeno intendendo questa come completiva di quella, analogamente a quanto si \u00e8 visto in riferimento alla querelle sugli Eleati.\r\n\r\nAnche a proposito di quest\u2019ultima Simplicio si mostra lettore attento, quando \u00e8 possibile aderente ad Aristotele, che era considerato da tutti i neoplatonici filosofo di straordinario ingegno, ma senza mai dimenticare che la somma auctoritas spetta senza dubbio a Platone, in linea con un atteggiamento ermeneutico, risalente almeno a Porfirio, che \u00e8 conciliarista ma in un rapporto decisamente asimmetrico, dal momento che \u00e8 solo Platone, per Simplicio come per tutti i platonici d\u2019ogni tempo, l\u2019unico vero princeps philosophorum. [conclusion 187\u2013188]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o07B1GK3GIK7dVY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":248,"full_name":"Boriello, Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":249,"full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":403,"section_of":343,"pages":"171-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":343,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Vitale2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":343,"pubplace":"Rom","publisher":"Citt\u00e0 Nuova","series":"Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio, 2016
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano

Title	L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Journal	Athenaeum
Volume	104
Issue	1
Pages	186-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper I will explain some passages of Simplicius, in Phys. 1, in which the Commentator discusses the Aristotelian expression pephyke de ek tôn gvorimoteron (Phys. 1.1, 184a. 16). Here Simplicius distinguishes ta gnorimotera from to autopiston, such as the definitions and the immediate premises, and from the dianoetic knowledge, which is syllogistic and demonstrative. Notwithstanding the topic o f these passages is epistemological, here the Commentator, through a syllogism in which there is an evident reminiscence o f Plato’s Timaeus, cites the beauty o f the universe as an initial step to raise to the goodness o f die Demiurge. After an articulated investigation (in which are involved, as well, Aristotle’s Rhetoric and above all P osteriorA nalytics), Simplicius concludes that to kalon has the same statute of gnorimoteron hemîn (Arise. Phys. 1.1.184a.l6). The purpose o f the Commentator seems that to conciliate Plato and Aristotle, and the result is an original and creative, but at the same rime exact and careful, way to do the exegesis of Aristotle’s Physics. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5jR4LzCbg0vHYAp

{"_index":"sire","_id":"405","_score":null,"_source":{"id":405,"authors_free":[{"id":544,"entry_id":405,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio"},"abstract":"In this paper I will explain some passages of Simplicius, in Phys. 1, in which the Commentator discusses the Aristotelian expression pephyke de ek t\u00f4n gvorimoteron (Phys. 1.1, 184a. 16). Here Simplicius distinguishes ta gnorimotera from to autopiston, such as the def\u00adinitions and the immediate premises, and from the dianoetic knowledge, which is syllogistic and demonstrative. Notwithstanding the topic o f these passages is epistemological, here the Com\u00admentator, through a syllogism in which there is an evident reminiscence o f Plato\u2019s Timaeus, cites the beauty o f the universe as an initial step to raise to the goodness o f die Demiurge. After an articulated investigation (in which are involved, as well, Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric and above all P osteriorA nalytics), Simplicius concludes that to kalon has the same statute of gnorimoteron hem\u00een (Arise. Phys. 1.1.184a.l6). The purpose o f the Commentator seems that to conciliate Plato and Aristotle, and the result is an original and creative, but at the same rime exact and careful, way to do the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5jR4LzCbg0vHYAp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":405,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Athenaeum","volume":"104","issue":"1","pages":"186-200"}},"sort":[2016]}

Forms, Souls, and Embryos: Neoplatonists on Human Reproduction, 2016
By: Wilberding, James

Title	Forms, Souls, and Embryos: Neoplatonists on Human Reproduction
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	London – New York
Publisher	Routledge
Series	Issues in ancient philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wilberding, James
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Forms, Souls, and Embryos allows readers coming from different backgrounds to appreciate the depth and originality with which the Neoplatonists engaged with and responded to a number of philosophical questions central to human reproduction, including: What is the causal explanation of the embryo’s formation? How and to what extent are Platonic Forms involved? In what sense is a fetus ‘alive,’ and when does it become a human being? Where does the embryo’s soul come from, and how is it connected to its body? This is the first full-length study in English of this fascinating subject, and is a must-read for anyone interested in Neoplatonism or the history of medicine and embryology.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pFINi0kWts6jqtF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"221","_score":null,"_source":{"id":221,"authors_free":[{"id":283,"entry_id":221,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Forms, Souls, and Embryos: Neoplatonists on Human Reproduction","main_title":{"title":"Forms, Souls, and Embryos: Neoplatonists on Human Reproduction"},"abstract":"Forms, Souls, and Embryos allows readers coming from different backgrounds to appreciate the depth and originality with which the Neoplatonists engaged with and responded to a number of philosophical questions central to human reproduction, including: What is the causal explanation of the embryo\u2019s formation? How and to what extent are Platonic Forms involved? In what sense is a fetus \u2018alive,\u2019 and when does it become a human being? Where does the embryo\u2019s soul come from, and how is it connected to its body? This is the first full-length study in English of this fascinating subject, and is a must-read for anyone interested in Neoplatonism or the history of medicine and embryology.","btype":1,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pFINi0kWts6jqtF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":221,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Issues in ancient philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics, 2016
By: Coope, Ursula

Title	Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Volume	50
Pages	237-288
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Coope, Ursula
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper, we have seen how ps.-Simplicius draws upon the Neoplatonic notion of self-reversion to explain the nature of rational assent. I have argued that this account of assent provides a basis for explaining a fundamental difference between assenting and having impressions: the fact that we can assent for a reason but cannot (in the same sense) have an impression for a reason. Ps.-Simplicius' account thus suggests an interesting new view of the nature of assent, a view that combines elements of Aristotelian, Stoic, and Neoplatonist thought. From the Stoics, he inherits the view that believing involves assenting. He draws upon the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain the essentially self-reflexive nature of assent. This enables him to defend Aristotle's claim that we cannot believe at will. On this account, though we do not believe at will, we nevertheless have a kind of rational control over our beliefs: beliefs, by their very nature, are such as to be revised or maintained for reasons. This account thus provides an answer to the question we raised for the Stoics: what is it about the nature of assent that explains why you are responsible for assenting in a way in which you are not responsible for having impressions? You are responsible for assenting just because you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, and you can assent for reasons just because of the essentially self-reflexive nature of the act of assent. [conclusion p. 286]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EAq0q2QllqJrF4y

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1276","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1276,"authors_free":[{"id":1865,"entry_id":1276,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":53,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coope, Ursula","free_first_name":"Ursula","free_last_name":"Coope","norm_person":{"id":53,"first_name":"Ursula","last_name":"Coope","full_name":"Coope, Ursula","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078072639","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics","main_title":{"title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics"},"abstract":"In this paper, we have seen how ps.-Simplicius draws upon the Neoplatonic notion of self-reversion to explain the nature of rational assent. I have argued that this account of assent provides a basis for explaining a fundamental difference between assenting and having impressions: the fact that we can assent for a reason but cannot (in the same sense) have an impression for a reason.\r\n\r\nPs.-Simplicius' account thus suggests an interesting new view of the nature of assent, a view that combines elements of Aristotelian, Stoic, and Neoplatonist thought. From the Stoics, he inherits the view that believing involves assenting. He draws upon the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain the essentially self-reflexive nature of assent. This enables him to defend Aristotle's claim that we cannot believe at will.\r\n\r\nOn this account, though we do not believe at will, we nevertheless have a kind of rational control over our beliefs: beliefs, by their very nature, are such as to be revised or maintained for reasons.\r\n\r\nThis account thus provides an answer to the question we raised for the Stoics: what is it about the nature of assent that explains why you are responsible for assenting in a way in which you are not responsible for having impressions?\r\n\r\nYou are responsible for assenting just because you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, and you can assent for reasons just because of the essentially self-reflexive nature of the act of assent.\r\n[conclusion p. 286]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EAq0q2QllqJrF4y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":53,"full_name":"Coope, Ursula","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1276,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"237-288"}},"sort":[2016]}

The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators, 2016
By: Gottschalk, Hans B., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages	61-88
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gottschalk, Hans B.
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the fi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist opponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something of Andronicus’ philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work on Aristotle’s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but now largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that Andronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on Chapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated enormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic interpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description ‘scholasticism’, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a description we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery of new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a contribution on some of Boethus’ achievement and further detail on the commentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. Th e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words ‘critical edition’ at the opening of Gottschalk’s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was challenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by comparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what the original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what Andronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript there, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly reduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re- Interpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of Aristotle’s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this argument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle’s voluminous school writings, by joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for reading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":535,"authors_free":[{"id":756,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":757,"entry_id":535,"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":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators","main_title":{"title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"},"abstract":" In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the \r\nfi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist \r\nopponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something \r\nof Andronicus\u2019 philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work \r\non Aristotle\u2019s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but \r\nnow largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that \r\nAndronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on \r\nChapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated \r\nenormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic \r\ninterpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description \r\n\u2018scholasticism\u2019, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a \r\ndescription we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery \r\nof new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a \r\ncontribution on some of Boethus\u2019 achievement and further detail on the \r\ncommentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. \r\nTh e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words \u2018critical edition\u2019 at the \r\nopening of Gottschalk\u2019s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was \r\nchallenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by \r\ncomparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what \r\nthe original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what \r\nAndronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript \r\nthere, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly \r\nreduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re-\r\nInterpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of \r\nAristotle\u2019s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this \r\nargument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle\u2019s voluminous school writings, \r\nby joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for \r\nreading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":535,"section_of":200,"pages":"61-88","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Chapter 7. Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle, 2016
By: Panayiotis Tzamalikos

Title	Chapter 7. Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity
Pages	421-487
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Panayiotis Tzamalikos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle’s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras’ propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous. In this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius’ reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle’s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master’s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle’s allegations. We have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras’ principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius’ explanation, branding it as “Neoplatonic.” It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.¹ In this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras’ own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term “incorporeal,” even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term “incorporeal” a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning “incorporeal.” God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.² In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180–125 AD) boldly asserted that “God is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body”;³ for “nothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.”⁴ So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic. What is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term “incorporeal” (or indeed the term “principle”) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras’ principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be “logical to the bitter end.”⁵ It is now time for us to see Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422]

Online Resources

Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity, 2016
By: Panayiotis Tzamalikos

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1597","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1597,"authors_free":[{"id":2798,"entry_id":1597,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Panayiotis Tzamalikos","free_first_name":"Panayiotis","free_last_name":"Tzamalikos","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle"},"abstract":"The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle\u2019s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras\u2019 propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius\u2019 reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master\u2019s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle\u2019s allegations.\r\n\r\nWe have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras\u2019 principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius\u2019 explanation, branding it as \u201cNeoplatonic.\u201d It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.\u00b9\r\n\r\nIn this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras\u2019 own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term \u201cincorporeal,\u201d even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning \u201cincorporeal.\u201d God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.\u00b2 In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180\u2013125 AD) boldly asserted that \u201cGod is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body\u201d;\u00b3 for \u201cnothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.\u201d\u2074 So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic.\r\n\r\nWhat is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d (or indeed the term \u201cprinciple\u201d) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras\u2019 principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be \u201clogical to the bitter end.\u201d\u2075\r\n\r\nIt is now time for us to see Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1597,"section_of":1598,"pages":"421-487","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1598,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tzamalikos2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Origen has been always studied as a theologian and too much credit has been given to Eusebius\u2019 implausible hagiography of him. This book explores who Origen really was, by pondering into his philosophical background, which determines his theological exposition implicitly, yet decisively. For this background to come to light, it took a ground-breaking exposition of Anaxagoras\u2019 philosophy and its legacy to Classical and Late Antiquity, assessing critically Aristotle\u2019s distorted representation of Anaxagoras. Origen, formerly a Greek philosopher of note, whom Proclus styled an anti-Platonist, is placed in the history of philosophy for the first time. By drawing on his Anaxagorean background, and being the first to revive the Anaxagorean Theory of Logoi, he paved the way to Nicaea. He was an anti-Platonist because he was an Anaxagorean philosopher with far-reaching influence, also on Neoplatonists such as Porphyry. His theology made an impact not only on the Cappadocians, but also on later Christian authors. His theory of the soul, now expounded in the light of his philosophical background, turns out more orthodox than that of some Christian stars of the Byzantine imperial orthodoxy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1598,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte","volume":"128","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Title	Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte
Volume	128
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Panayiotis Tzamalikos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Origen has been always studied as a theologian and too much credit has been given to Eusebius’ implausible hagiography of him. This book explores who Origen really was, by pondering into his philosophical background, which determines his theological exposition implicitly, yet decisively. For this background to come to light, it took a ground-breaking exposition of Anaxagoras’ philosophy and its legacy to Classical and Late Antiquity, assessing critically Aristotle’s distorted representation of Anaxagoras. Origen, formerly a Greek philosopher of note, whom Proclus styled an anti-Platonist, is placed in the history of philosophy for the first time. By drawing on his Anaxagorean background, and being the first to revive the Anaxagorean Theory of Logoi, he paved the way to Nicaea. He was an anti-Platonist because he was an Anaxagorean philosopher with far-reaching influence, also on Neoplatonists such as Porphyry. His theology made an impact not only on the Cappadocians, but also on later Christian authors. His theory of the soul, now expounded in the light of his philosophical background, turns out more orthodox than that of some Christian stars of the Byzantine imperial orthodoxy. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle, 2016
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Falcon, Andrea (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1598","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1598,"authors_free":[{"id":2797,"entry_id":1598,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Panayiotis Tzamalikos","free_first_name":"Panayiotis","free_last_name":"Tzamalikos","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Origen has been always studied as a theologian and too much credit has been given to Eusebius\u2019 implausible hagiography of him. This book explores who Origen really was, by pondering into his philosophical background, which determines his theological exposition implicitly, yet decisively. For this background to come to light, it took a ground-breaking exposition of Anaxagoras\u2019 philosophy and its legacy to Classical and Late Antiquity, assessing critically Aristotle\u2019s distorted representation of Anaxagoras. Origen, formerly a Greek philosopher of note, whom Proclus styled an anti-Platonist, is placed in the history of philosophy for the first time. By drawing on his Anaxagorean background, and being the first to revive the Anaxagorean Theory of Logoi, he paved the way to Nicaea. He was an anti-Platonist because he was an Anaxagorean philosopher with far-reaching influence, also on Neoplatonists such as Porphyry. His theology made an impact not only on the Cappadocians, but also on later Christian authors. His theory of the soul, now expounded in the light of his philosophical background, turns out more orthodox than that of some Christian stars of the Byzantine imperial orthodoxy. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1598,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte","volume":"128","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Title	Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity
Pages	419-438
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Translator(s)

Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle’s philosophy. Simplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.” Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1323","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1323,"authors_free":[{"id":1957,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2222,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy.\r\n\r\nSimplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and of Philoponus as the \u201cmodernist.\u201d\r\n\r\nPhiloponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1323,"section_of":304,"pages":"419-438","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel Commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi in greco, traduzione e commentario, 2016
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano

Title	Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel Commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi in greco, traduzione e commentario
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	Symbolon
Volume	42
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Questo libro di Ivan Adriano Licciardi su Parmenide nel Commento alla Fisica di Simplicio colma una vistosa e per certi aspetti paradossale lacuna negli studi sul Neoplatonismo: sebbene Simplicio (VI sec. d.C.) rappresenti una delle fonti più importanti per la ricostruzione del poema di Parmenide (costituisce l'unico testimone dei celebri frr. 6 e 8), manca a tutt'oggi uno studio approfondito dedicato alla sua interpretazione della figura di Parmenide e in generale della filosofia eleatica. Il lavoro di Licciardi, accurato dal punto di vista filologico, ben documentato sotto l'aspetto storiografico e dotato di acume filosofico, costituisce dunque un contributo prezioso, e per più di un aspetto seminale, su un nodo strategico della trasmissione e della ricezione del pensiero di Parmenide. L'ipotesi interpretativa che regge l'impianto storiografico di questo studio è che il Parmenide tràdito di Simplicio sia contemporaneamente un Parmenide tradìto. In effetti, Simplicio si impegna a promuovere un'immagine di Parmenide che risulti omogenea alla strategia concordista che attraversa una larga parte del tardo neoplatoni-smo pagano. La sostanziale convergenza tra Platone e Aristotele viene estesa da Simplicio anche a Parmenide, al quale egli attribuisce un'attitudine filosofica che anticipa il bi-mondismo formu-lato da Platone. Come già prima di lui aveva fatto Plutarco di Cheronea, anche Simplicio attri-buisce a Parmenide la formulazione dell'opposizione 'platonica' tra intelligibile e sensibile; sul-le orme di Plotino Simplicio interpreta il monismo ontologico di Parmenide, ossia la concezione dell'essere-uno, come una prefigurazione della seconda 'ipotesi' dell'esercizio del Parmenide platonico, dove vengono esaminate le conseguenze a partire dall'uno che è. Del resto la stessa critica che Aristotele muove a Parmenide e all'Eleatismo viene fortemente indebolita da Simplicio, che la piega alle esigenze della sua attitudine concordista. Il risultato di una simile operazione è, come spiega bene Licciardi, che il Parmenide di Simplicio non è né quello storico, né quello 'platonico', ossia quello messo in scena nel Parmenide, e neppure quello 'aristotelico', cioè quello contenuto nel I libro della Fisica. [Franco Ferrari]

Online Resources

Parmenide tradìto nel Commentario di Simplicio

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1402","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1402,"authors_free":[{"id":2298,"entry_id":1402,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel Commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi in greco, traduzione e commentario","main_title":{"title":"Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel Commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi in greco, traduzione e commentario"},"abstract":"Questo libro di Ivan Adriano Licciardi su Parmenide nel Commento alla Fisica di Simplicio colma una vistosa e per certi aspetti paradossale lacuna negli studi sul Neoplatonismo: sebbene Simplicio (VI sec. d.C.) rappresenti una delle fonti pi\u00f9 importanti per la ricostruzione del poema di Parmenide (costituisce l'unico testimone dei celebri frr. 6 e 8), manca a tutt'oggi uno studio approfondito dedicato alla sua interpretazione della figura di Parmenide e in generale della filosofia eleatica.\r\nIl lavoro di Licciardi, accurato dal punto di vista filologico, ben documentato sotto l'aspetto storiografico e dotato di acume filosofico, costituisce dunque un contributo prezioso, e per pi\u00f9 di un aspetto seminale, su un nodo strategico della trasmissione e della ricezione del pensiero di Parmenide. L'ipotesi interpretativa che regge l'impianto storiografico di questo studio \u00e8 che il Parmenide tr\u00e0dito di Simplicio sia contemporaneamente un Parmenide trad\u00ecto. In effetti, Simplicio si impegna a promuovere un'immagine di Parmenide che risulti omogenea alla strategia concordista che attraversa una larga parte del tardo neoplatoni-smo pagano. La sostanziale convergenza tra Platone e Aristotele viene estesa da Simplicio anche a Parmenide, al quale egli attribuisce un'attitudine filosofica che anticipa il bi-mondismo formu-lato da Platone. Come gi\u00e0 prima di lui aveva fatto Plutarco di Cheronea, anche Simplicio attri-buisce a Parmenide la formulazione dell'opposizione 'platonica' tra intelligibile e sensibile; sul-le orme di Plotino Simplicio interpreta il monismo ontologico di Parmenide, ossia la concezione dell'essere-uno, come una prefigurazione della seconda 'ipotesi' dell'esercizio del Parmenide platonico, dove vengono esaminate le conseguenze a partire dall'uno che \u00e8. Del resto la stessa critica che Aristotele muove a Parmenide e all'Eleatismo viene fortemente indebolita da Simplicio, che la piega alle esigenze della sua attitudine concordista. Il risultato di una simile operazione \u00e8, come spiega bene Licciardi, che il Parmenide di Simplicio non \u00e8 n\u00e9 quello storico, n\u00e9 quello 'platonico', ossia quello messo in scena nel Parmenide, e neppure quello 'aristotelico', cio\u00e8 quello contenuto nel I libro della Fisica. [Franco Ferrari]","btype":1,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel Commentario di Simplicio","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1402,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"Symbolon","volume":"42","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy, 2016
By: D'Ancona Costa, Cristina

Title	Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Studia graeco-arabica
Volume	6
Pages	294-301
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Within the history of the reception of ancient cosmology in later ages, Aristotle’s De Caelo plays an important role. Simplicius’ work on the planets and their motions is devoted to a specific point in the late antique exegesis of this Aristotelian treatise, namely the problem of planetary motions and the solution to it provided by Simplicius (d. 555 AD) in his commentary on De Caelo. Planetary motions indeed pose a problem for him: while throughout his commentary he is committed to showing that Aristotle’s description of the heavens is the correct one, on this particular issue he substitutes Ptolemy’s system for Aristotle’s (pp. 84-86). Bowen focuses on Simplicius’ “preference for post-Aristotelian planetary hypotheses” (p. 51) and questions the reason for this. For Bowen, the answer lies in the well-known debate on the nature of the heavens that arose in the first half of the 6th century between Simplicius and Philoponus. Challenged by Philoponus in a lost work—whose main, though not exclusive, source of knowledge for us is Simplicius himself—the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and divinity of the heavens was defended by Simplicius in his commentary on De Caelo, where he also directed harsh criticisms at Philoponus. In Bowen’s book, four introductory chapters (pp. 27-93) precede the translation of Simplicius’ In De Caelo II, 10-12 (= pp. 470.29-510.35 Heiberg), followed by a series of comments on selected topics (pp. 201-98). Figures and tables are provided at the end of the introduction (pp. 22-25) and between the translation and the comments (pp. 181-97). Bowen frames much of his discussion against the backdrop of Simplicius’ struggle against Philoponus. Chapter One opens with the claim: “The great digression at the end of Simplicius’ In De Caelo 2.12 [492.25-510.35] is an apologia precipitated by Philoponus, the renegade Platonist, and his attack on Aristotle’s arguments for a fifth simple body, aether” (p. 27). Even though Philoponus’ rejection of Aristotelian cosmology is not explicitly mentioned in Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12, Bowen considers it Simplicius’ real target. Philoponus’ attack on the theory of the aether and its movement lies in the background of what, at first glance, appears to be a highly specialized discussion of the difficulties in the homocentric theory and an excursus on their solutions. Bowen’s interpretation centers on the idea that Simplicius was well aware of the limitations of the homocentric theory. Faced with Philoponus’ objections, he sought a solution that was compatible with his own assumption of the circular and, consequently, eternal motion of the heavens. Philoponus’ main objection is as follows: if it were true that the entire cosmos rotates about its center, then the planets should not exhibit rotations about their own axes, nor should they have apogees and perigees—an argument that, according to Bowen, Simplicius could only agree with. In fact, this was precisely the reason he sided with Ptolemy. However, Simplicius could by no means endorse the general conclusion Philoponus drew from this, namely that there is no aether endowed with circular, eternal motion. Bowen argues that Philoponus’ criticism “brings to the fore two points against Aristotle,” namely the rotation of the planets about their axes and their apogees and perigees, “in which he sides with Philoponus.” The danger here is heresy: Simplicius is now obliged to show that his agreement with Philoponus does not lead to Philoponus’ blasphemous conclusion (p. 28), hence the subtitle of Bowen’s book, In Defense of a Heresy. This reconstruction hinges on linking Simplicius’ statements in his commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12—especially in the section labeled “digression”—to Philoponus. As Bowen puts it, “The digression is the apologia in full” (p. 64). As noted earlier, this long passage, which concludes Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 12, addresses difficulties in the cosmic model presented in Metaphysics XII 8, where all the spheres rotate around the Earth, the center of the universe (pp. 14, 92). However, Bowen maintains that, beyond its explicit content, the “digression” is in reality a response to Philoponus. The latter is not mentioned directly; instead, Simplicius presents Xenarchus’ objections and counters them with the arguments developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias. Only after addressing these objections, “long after Philoponus’ objections to the Aristotelian aether have been answered, does Simplicius again take up, without mentioning Philoponus, the question of the homocentric planetary theory (...). So the astronomical digression (παρέκβασις) at the close of In De Caelo 2.12 is, logically speaking, a part of Simplicius’ attempt to deal with Philoponus” (p. 15). [introduction p. 294-295]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PxYyMRyYuxV6BPl

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1410","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1410,"authors_free":[{"id":2205,"entry_id":1410,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"D'Ancona Costa","free_last_name":"Cristina","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy","main_title":{"title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy"},"abstract":"Within the history of the reception of ancient cosmology in later ages, Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo plays an important role. Simplicius\u2019 work on the planets and their motions is devoted to a specific point in the late antique exegesis of this Aristotelian treatise, namely the problem of planetary motions and the solution to it provided by Simplicius (d. 555 AD) in his commentary on De Caelo. Planetary motions indeed pose a problem for him: while throughout his commentary he is committed to showing that Aristotle\u2019s description of the heavens is the correct one, on this particular issue he substitutes Ptolemy\u2019s system for Aristotle\u2019s (pp. 84-86). Bowen focuses on Simplicius\u2019 \u201cpreference for post-Aristotelian planetary hypotheses\u201d (p. 51) and questions the reason for this.\r\n\r\nFor Bowen, the answer lies in the well-known debate on the nature of the heavens that arose in the first half of the 6th century between Simplicius and Philoponus. Challenged by Philoponus in a lost work\u2014whose main, though not exclusive, source of knowledge for us is Simplicius himself\u2014the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and divinity of the heavens was defended by Simplicius in his commentary on De Caelo, where he also directed harsh criticisms at Philoponus.\r\n\r\nIn Bowen\u2019s book, four introductory chapters (pp. 27-93) precede the translation of Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo II, 10-12 (= pp. 470.29-510.35 Heiberg), followed by a series of comments on selected topics (pp. 201-98). Figures and tables are provided at the end of the introduction (pp. 22-25) and between the translation and the comments (pp. 181-97). Bowen frames much of his discussion against the backdrop of Simplicius\u2019 struggle against Philoponus. Chapter One opens with the claim:\r\n\r\n \u201cThe great digression at the end of Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo 2.12 [492.25-510.35] is an apologia precipitated by Philoponus, the renegade Platonist, and his attack on Aristotle\u2019s arguments for a fifth simple body, aether\u201d (p. 27).\r\n\r\nEven though Philoponus\u2019 rejection of Aristotelian cosmology is not explicitly mentioned in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12, Bowen considers it Simplicius\u2019 real target. Philoponus\u2019 attack on the theory of the aether and its movement lies in the background of what, at first glance, appears to be a highly specialized discussion of the difficulties in the homocentric theory and an excursus on their solutions.\r\n\r\nBowen\u2019s interpretation centers on the idea that Simplicius was well aware of the limitations of the homocentric theory. Faced with Philoponus\u2019 objections, he sought a solution that was compatible with his own assumption of the circular and, consequently, eternal motion of the heavens. Philoponus\u2019 main objection is as follows: if it were true that the entire cosmos rotates about its center, then the planets should not exhibit rotations about their own axes, nor should they have apogees and perigees\u2014an argument that, according to Bowen, Simplicius could only agree with. In fact, this was precisely the reason he sided with Ptolemy. However, Simplicius could by no means endorse the general conclusion Philoponus drew from this, namely that there is no aether endowed with circular, eternal motion.\r\n\r\nBowen argues that Philoponus\u2019 criticism \u201cbrings to the fore two points against Aristotle,\u201d namely the rotation of the planets about their axes and their apogees and perigees, \u201cin which he sides with Philoponus.\u201d The danger here is heresy: Simplicius is now obliged to show that his agreement with Philoponus does not lead to Philoponus\u2019 blasphemous conclusion (p. 28), hence the subtitle of Bowen\u2019s book, In Defense of a Heresy.\r\n\r\nThis reconstruction hinges on linking Simplicius\u2019 statements in his commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12\u2014especially in the section labeled \u201cdigression\u201d\u2014to Philoponus. As Bowen puts it, \u201cThe digression is the apologia in full\u201d (p. 64). As noted earlier, this long passage, which concludes Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De Caelo II, 12, addresses difficulties in the cosmic model presented in Metaphysics XII 8, where all the spheres rotate around the Earth, the center of the universe (pp. 14, 92). However, Bowen maintains that, beyond its explicit content, the \u201cdigression\u201d is in reality a response to Philoponus. The latter is not mentioned directly; instead, Simplicius presents Xenarchus\u2019 objections and counters them with the arguments developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias.\r\n\r\nOnly after addressing these objections, \u201clong after Philoponus\u2019 objections to the Aristotelian aether have been answered, does Simplicius again take up, without mentioning Philoponus, the question of the homocentric planetary theory (...). So the astronomical digression (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) at the close of In De Caelo 2.12 is, logically speaking, a part of Simplicius\u2019 attempt to deal with Philoponus\u201d (p. 15). [introduction p. 294-295]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PxYyMRyYuxV6BPl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1410,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"294-301"}},"sort":[2016]}

Mixis: le problème du mélange dans la philosophie grecque d'Aristote à Simplicius, 2016
By: Groisard, Jocelyn

Title	Mixis: le problème du mélange dans la philosophie grecque d'Aristote à Simplicius
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2016
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Belles lettres
Series	Anagôgê
Volume	9
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Groisard, Jocelyn
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Que se passe-t-il quand de l'eau et du vin se melangent ? Comment les quatre elements simples du monde physique se melent-ils les uns aux autres pour former les choses qui nous entourent ? La multitude des couleurs vient-elle aussi d'un melange de couleurs simples ? Deux corps melanges sont-ils simplement juxtaposes a une echelle microscopique ou bien peuvent-ils se compenetrer de sorte qu'il y aurait deux corps dans le meme lieu ? L'union de l'ame et du corps est-elle un melange ? Telles sont quelques-unes des questions etonnamment diverses que croise cette histoire du probleme du melange dans la philosophie grecque. Le recit propose ici suit trois lignes principales : la tradition peripateticienne, qui, d'Aristote a son commentateur Alexandre d'Aphrodise, elabore un modele de melange par mediation ou les ingredients de depart s'assimilent reciproquement pour s'unifier en un compose qualitativement intermediaire ; la doctrine stoicienne de la mixtion de part en part , ou les ingredients se compenetrent jusqu'a devenir parfaitement coextensifs ; le neoplatonisme et les transpositions qu'il opere a partir des modeles physiques precedents pour penser non seulement des relations entre corps mais aussi celle entre l'ame et le corps ou bien entre les realites incorporelles ou immaterielles de l'arriere-monde suprasensible. Fondee sur un vaste corpus de textes couvrant pres d'un millenaire d'histoire de la philosophie grecque, cette etude se veut aussi une proposition de methode : donner a lire les textes eux-memes et rester au plus pres de l'analyse des sources pour suivre parmi l'etonnant foisonnement des doctrines les developpements aussi divers qu'inattendus que la raison humaine, dans sa luxuriante imagination theorique, sait donner a la meme idee, fut-elle aussi courante et intuitive que celle de melange. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4jHtsWKi2OwB3cO

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1415","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1415,"authors_free":[{"id":2216,"entry_id":1415,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":394,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Groisard, Jocelyn","free_first_name":"Jocelyn","free_last_name":"Groisard","norm_person":{"id":394,"first_name":"Jocelyn","last_name":"Groisard","full_name":"Groisard, Jocelyn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1105076865","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mixis: le probl\u00e8me du m\u00e9lange dans la philosophie grecque d'Aristote \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Mixis: le probl\u00e8me du m\u00e9lange dans la philosophie grecque d'Aristote \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"Que se passe-t-il quand de l'eau et du vin se melangent ? Comment les quatre elements simples du monde physique se melent-ils les uns aux autres pour former les choses qui nous entourent ? La multitude des couleurs vient-elle aussi d'un melange de couleurs simples ? Deux corps melanges sont-ils simplement juxtaposes a une echelle microscopique ou bien peuvent-ils se compenetrer de sorte qu'il y aurait deux corps dans le meme lieu ? L'union de l'ame et du corps est-elle un melange ? Telles sont quelques-unes des questions etonnamment diverses que croise cette histoire du probleme du melange dans la philosophie grecque. Le recit propose ici suit trois lignes principales : la tradition peripateticienne, qui, d'Aristote a son commentateur Alexandre d'Aphrodise, elabore un modele de melange par mediation ou les ingredients de depart s'assimilent reciproquement pour s'unifier en un compose qualitativement intermediaire ; la doctrine stoicienne de la mixtion de part en part , ou les ingredients se compenetrent jusqu'a devenir parfaitement coextensifs ; le neoplatonisme et les transpositions qu'il opere a partir des modeles physiques precedents pour penser non seulement des relations entre corps mais aussi celle entre l'ame et le corps ou bien entre les realites incorporelles ou immaterielles de l'arriere-monde suprasensible. Fondee sur un vaste corpus de textes couvrant pres d'un millenaire d'histoire de la philosophie grecque, cette etude se veut aussi une proposition de methode : donner a lire les textes eux-memes et rester au plus pres de l'analyse des sources pour suivre parmi l'etonnant foisonnement des doctrines les developpements aussi divers qu'inattendus que la raison humaine, dans sa luxuriante imagination theorique, sait donner a la meme idee, fut-elle aussi courante et intuitive que celle de melange. [official abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2016","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4jHtsWKi2OwB3cO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":394,"full_name":"Groisard, Jocelyn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1415,"pubplace":"Paris ","publisher":"Belles lettres","series":"Anag\u00f4g\u00ea","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus, 2016
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	393-412
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Philoponus’ denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work. To conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius’ commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus’ edition of Ammonius’ lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius’ lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1418","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1418,"authors_free":[{"id":2219,"entry_id":1418,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2221,"entry_id":1418,"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":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"},"abstract":"Philoponus\u2019 denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work.\r\n\r\nTo conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius\u2019 commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus\u2019 edition of Ammonius\u2019 lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius\u2019 lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1418,"section_of":1419,"pages":"393-412","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/thdAvlIvWl4EdKB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators, 2016
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	New York
Publisher	Bloomsbury Academic
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

This volume presents collected essays – some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated – on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as ‘a scholarly marvel’, ‘a truly breath-taking achievement’ and ‘one of the great scholarly achievements of our time’ and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field. With a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1419","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1419,"authors_free":[{"id":2220,"entry_id":1419,"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":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators"},"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines, 2016
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Golitsis, Pantelis, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	531–540
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe , Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Simplicius’ Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius’ predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (‘the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body’ (to tou periekhontos peras akinêton prôton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20–1) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron tês theseôs) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle’s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1508,"authors_free":[{"id":2619,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2620,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2621,"entry_id":1508,"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":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (\u2018the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body\u2019 (to tou periekhontos peras akin\u00eaton pr\u00f4ton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20\u20131) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron t\u00eas these\u00f4s) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle\u2019s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1508,"section_of":1419,"pages":"531\u2013540","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher, 2016
By: Roueché, Mossman, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	541-564
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Roueché, Mossman
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

The role played by Stephanus the Philosopher in the history of philosophy in the sixth century has been poorly studied. Th e clearest indication of this is the absence of any entry for Stephanus in either the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the recent Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. He is universally acknowledged to be the author of an extant commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione but beyond that, there has been considerable uncertainty concerning the identity, the date and the works attributed to someone who has been called ‘a very shadowy figure’. From the time of Hermann Usener’s classic dissertation, De Stephano Alexandrino, interest in Stephanus as a philosopher has been over- shadowed by interest in his non- philosophical activities. These include his supposed appointment as an ‘ecumenical teacher’ in Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius and his authorship of certain astrological, astronomical, alchemical and medical works that are attributed to ‘Stephanus’ in some manuscripts. It has recently been shown that the arguments for ascribing to him these non- philosophical activities are based on anachronistic evidence and that the conclusions are no longer valid. The removal of this‘evidence’ and the conclusions drawn from it provides a timely opportunity to examine afresh the genuine evidence that we have for his life and works as a philosopher and to draw some important conclusions regarding his influence. Far from being a shadowy figure, Stephanus was an important philosopher in sixth century Alexandria. He was a student of John Philoponus and, as one of the Christian successors of Olympiodorus, he continued the Christianisation of the introductory philosophical curriculum. His lectures covered the entire Organon and became the source of a philosophical vocabulary widely used by Christian theologians, including Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, during the seventh and eighth centuries. Through translations into Syriac and Arabic, his commentaries continued to influence Syrian and Arabic philosophers well into the mediaeval period. [introduction p. 541-542]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N5kDdYi5KDU6EBg

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1527","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1527,"authors_free":[{"id":2659,"entry_id":1527,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rouech\u00e9, Mossman","free_first_name":"Mossman","free_last_name":"Rouech\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2660,"entry_id":1527,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher","main_title":{"title":"A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher"},"abstract":"The role played by Stephanus the Philosopher in the history of philosophy in the sixth century has been poorly studied. Th e clearest indication of this is the absence of any entry for Stephanus in either the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the recent Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. He is universally acknowledged to be the author of an extant commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione but beyond that, there has been considerable uncertainty concerning the identity, the date and the works attributed to someone who has been called \u2018a very shadowy figure\u2019. From the time of Hermann Usener\u2019s classic dissertation, De Stephano Alexandrino, interest in Stephanus as a philosopher has been over- shadowed by interest in his non- philosophical activities. These include his supposed appointment as an \u2018ecumenical teacher\u2019 in Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius and his authorship of certain astrological, astronomical, alchemical and medical works that are attributed to \u2018Stephanus\u2019 in some manuscripts. It has recently been shown that the arguments for ascribing to him these non- philosophical activities are based on anachronistic evidence and that the conclusions are no longer valid. The removal of this\u2018evidence\u2019 and the conclusions drawn from it provides a timely opportunity to examine afresh the genuine evidence that we have for his life and works as a philosopher and to draw some important conclusions regarding his influence. Far from being a shadowy figure, Stephanus was an important philosopher in sixth century Alexandria. He was a student of John Philoponus and, as one of the Christian successors of Olympiodorus, he continued the Christianisation of the introductory philosophical curriculum. His lectures covered the entire Organon and became the source of a philosophical vocabulary widely used by Christian theologians, including Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, during the seventh and eighth centuries. Through translations into Syriac and Arabic, his commentaries continued to influence Syrian and Arabic philosophers well into the mediaeval period. [introduction p. 541-542]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N5kDdYi5KDU6EBg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1527,"section_of":1419,"pages":"541-564","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Dating of Philoponus’ Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius, 2016
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Dating of Philoponus’ Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	367-392
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

There have been two major hypotheses since 1990, and much valuable discussion concerning the dating of Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle and of his divergence from Ammonius. In 1990, Koenraad Verrycken summarized in Aristotle Transformed his new datings for Philoponus’ work, drawing on apparent contradictions in his statements about the eternity or coming-into-being of the universe and its contents, about the nature of place, and about the possibility of vacuum and of motion in a vacuum. His earlier dissertation of 1985 also included Philoponus’ changing treatment of Aristotle’s prime matter. He suggested solving these problems by postulating a phase around 517 CE in which Philoponus accepted his teacher Ammonius’ Neoplatonism and interpretation of Aristotle as agreeing with Plato and with Neoplatonism, and a later phase in which he reverted to his Christian origins on the level of doctrine and repudiated the Neoplatonist and Aristotelian ideas, especially where, as with eternity or the Creation of the universe, they contradicted Christian ideas. This called for a second edition of some earlier commentaries on Aristotle after 529 CE. Verrycken was aware that his particular dating might not be accepted, and even that the appearance of a Neoplatonist or Aristotelian view might sometimes be due to the expository nature of commentary on Aristotle. This and other explanations have since been proffered, and the particular dating has received widespread criticism, which I have summarized elsewhere. Nonetheless, even if Philoponus does not juxtapose as often as suggested different viewpoints of his own, Verrycken’s citations establish that he does develop different viewpoints across a wide range of texts and topics, so that it remains necessary to consider his evidence in formulating any alternative dating. The second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus’ seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus’ commentarial (skholastikai) notes (aposêmeiôseis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus’ name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idiôn) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry’s Introduction (Isagôgê), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle’s logic. All this could have several important implications. First, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus’ own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius’ seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius’ lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius’ lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving. However, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli’s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius’ seminars and Philoponus’ (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus’ editions of Ammonius’ lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry’s Isagôgê, and on Aristotle’s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics. So far, Golitsis’ conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1531","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1531,"authors_free":[{"id":2667,"entry_id":1531,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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":2668,"entry_id":1531,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius","main_title":{"title":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius"},"abstract":"There have been two major hypotheses since 1990, and much valuable discussion concerning the dating of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle and of his divergence from Ammonius. In 1990, Koenraad Verrycken summarized in Aristotle Transformed his new datings for Philoponus\u2019 work, drawing on apparent contradictions in his statements about the eternity or coming-into-being of the universe and its contents, about the nature of place, and about the possibility of vacuum and of motion in a vacuum. His earlier dissertation of 1985 also included Philoponus\u2019 changing treatment of Aristotle\u2019s prime matter. He suggested solving these problems by postulating a phase around 517 CE in which Philoponus accepted his teacher Ammonius\u2019 Neoplatonism and interpretation of Aristotle as agreeing with Plato and with Neoplatonism, and a later phase in which he reverted to his Christian origins on the level of doctrine and repudiated the Neoplatonist and Aristotelian ideas, especially where, as with eternity or the Creation of the universe, they contradicted Christian ideas. This called for a second edition of some earlier commentaries on Aristotle after 529 CE. Verrycken was aware that his particular dating might not be accepted, and even that the appearance of a Neoplatonist or Aristotelian view might sometimes be due to the expository nature of commentary on Aristotle. This and other explanations have since been proffered, and the particular dating has received widespread criticism, which I have summarized elsewhere. Nonetheless, even if Philoponus does not juxtapose as often as suggested different viewpoints of his own, Verrycken\u2019s citations establish that he does develop different viewpoints across a wide range of texts and topics, so that it remains necessary to consider his evidence in formulating any alternative dating.\r\n\r\nThe second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus\u2019 seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus\u2019 commentarial (skholastikai) notes (apos\u00eamei\u00f4seis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus\u2019 name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idi\u00f4n) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry\u2019s Introduction (Isag\u00f4g\u00ea), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle\u2019s logic. All this could have several important implications.\r\n\r\nFirst, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus\u2019 own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius\u2019 seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius\u2019 lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving.\r\n\r\nHowever, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli\u2019s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius\u2019 seminars and Philoponus\u2019 (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus\u2019 editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry\u2019s Isag\u00f4g\u00ea, and on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics.\r\n\r\nSo far, Golitsis\u2019 conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1531,"section_of":1419,"pages":"367-392","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato’s Cratylus and Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, 2016
By: van den Berg, Robbert Maarten , Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato’s Cratylus and Aristotle’s De Interpretatione
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	353-366
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	van den Berg, Robbert Maarten
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Ammonius, the son of Hermeias († between 517 and 526), was not a prolific author, unlike his teacher Proclus (412–485). Whereas the latter wrote up to seven hundred lines a day, the only large work that Ammonius ever wrote was his commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione. Remarkably enough, for someone whose entire reputation rests on his study of Aristotle, he does not claim any credit for its content. His work, he writes at the beginning, is a record of the interpretations of his divine teacher Proclus. If he too is able to add anything to the clarification of the book, he ‘owes a great thanks to the god of eloquence.’ How much did the god of eloquence allow Ammonius to add? No other sources of Proclus’ course on the Int. survive. Yet in one case we are able to study Ammonius’ originality or the lack of it: his discussion of Aristotle’s views on onomata, a group of words that corresponds roughly speaking to our nouns and which I shall refer to as ‘names’ in this paper. One of the major issues in Greek linguistic thought throughout Antiquity was the relation between names and their objects. Does there exist some sort of natural relation between names and their objects, or are names just a matter of convention? Plato had discussed the question in his Cratylus, in which he had made a certain Hermogenes the spokesman of the conventionalist position and the eponymous character Cratylus an adherent of the naturalist position. In the end, Socrates forces both Hermogenes and Cratylus to admit that names are partly by nature and partly by convention, hence that they are both right and wrong. Many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe that in the first chapters of Int. Aristotle responded at least in part to the views expressed in the Cratylus. As it so happens, an excerpt of Proclus’ lecture notes on that Platonic dialogue has survived. A first reading of the two commentaries seems indeed to suggest that there is a substantial overlap between them on the relevant issue, even though Proclus may at times be critical of Aristotle. As we shall see, this apparent correspondence has even inspired an attempt to emend Proclus’ text at one point on the basis of Ammonius’ commentary. In this paper, I will argue that in fact Ammonius’ concept of onoma is significantly different from that of Proclus. As Proclus had observed, but as Ammonius tried to downplay, Aristotle had been arguing against Plato. For Proclus, this did not pose any particular problem. Like all Neoplatonists, Ammonius included, he was convinced that the divinely inspired Plato had to be right. If Aristotle chose to deviate from Plato and the truth, that was his problem. Proclus sets Socrates up as a judge (in Crat. §10, p. 4,12) between the conventionalist Hermogenes and the naturalist Cratylus, a judge who shows that they are both right and wrong. Aristotle is explicitly counted among the partisans of Hermogenes. On the whole, one can say that Proclus is very critical of Aristotle in in Crat. Ammonius, on the other hand, wanted to show that Plato and Aristotle were in complete harmony with each other, even where this is not evident. He too presents Socrates as a mediator between Hermogenes and Cratylus (in Int. 37,1), but this time Aristotle is not grouped together with Hermogenes but presented as being of the same mind as Socrates. As we shall see, Ammonius, when discussing the nature of names, takes his point of departure from Aristotle. Since Aristotle’s idea of what a name is differs from Plato’s, Ammonius will arrive at a concept of name that is fundamentally different from that of Proclus, who takes Plato as his starting point. On the assumption that Proclus, who for the most part appears to be quite consistent throughout his enormous œuvre, did not radically change his views when lecturing on Int., we may thus infer from this that Ammonius was not slavishly following Proclus. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of Ammonius’ interpretation of Cratylus’ position in the dialogue. In order to harmonize Plato with Aristotle, Ammonius offers a rather original, albeit not very convincing, reading of that position. Once we have established the fundamental difference between the two of them, we will be better able to explain a phenomenon to which Richard Sorabji has recently drawn attention: the absence of any interest in divine names in Ammonius’ commentary. Finally, this case study will allow us to make a more general observation about the relation between the Athenian and Alexandrian commentators. [introduction p. 353-355]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U7I3LYIXJL83A4Y

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1532","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1532,"authors_free":[{"id":2669,"entry_id":1532,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"van den Berg, Robbert Maarten ","free_first_name":"Robbert Maarten ","free_last_name":"van den Berg","norm_person":null},{"id":2670,"entry_id":1532,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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":"Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione","main_title":{"title":"Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione"},"abstract":"Ammonius, the son of Hermeias (\u2020 between 517 and 526), was not a prolific author, unlike his teacher Proclus (412\u2013485). Whereas the latter wrote up to seven hundred lines a day, the only large work that Ammonius ever wrote was his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione. Remarkably enough, for someone whose entire reputation rests on his study of Aristotle, he does not claim any credit for its content. His work, he writes at the beginning, is a record of the interpretations of his divine teacher Proclus. If he too is able to add anything to the clarification of the book, he \u2018owes a great thanks to the god of eloquence.\u2019\r\n\r\nHow much did the god of eloquence allow Ammonius to add? No other sources of Proclus\u2019 course on the Int. survive. Yet in one case we are able to study Ammonius\u2019 originality or the lack of it: his discussion of Aristotle\u2019s views on onomata, a group of words that corresponds roughly speaking to our nouns and which I shall refer to as \u2018names\u2019 in this paper.\r\n\r\nOne of the major issues in Greek linguistic thought throughout Antiquity was the relation between names and their objects. Does there exist some sort of natural relation between names and their objects, or are names just a matter of convention? Plato had discussed the question in his Cratylus, in which he had made a certain Hermogenes the spokesman of the conventionalist position and the eponymous character Cratylus an adherent of the naturalist position. In the end, Socrates forces both Hermogenes and Cratylus to admit that names are partly by nature and partly by convention, hence that they are both right and wrong. Many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe that in the first chapters of Int. Aristotle responded at least in part to the views expressed in the Cratylus. As it so happens, an excerpt of Proclus\u2019 lecture notes on that Platonic dialogue has survived. A first reading of the two commentaries seems indeed to suggest that there is a substantial overlap between them on the relevant issue, even though Proclus may at times be critical of Aristotle. As we shall see, this apparent correspondence has even inspired an attempt to emend Proclus\u2019 text at one point on the basis of Ammonius\u2019 commentary.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I will argue that in fact Ammonius\u2019 concept of onoma is significantly different from that of Proclus. As Proclus had observed, but as Ammonius tried to downplay, Aristotle had been arguing against Plato. For Proclus, this did not pose any particular problem. Like all Neoplatonists, Ammonius included, he was convinced that the divinely inspired Plato had to be right. If Aristotle chose to deviate from Plato and the truth, that was his problem. Proclus sets Socrates up as a judge (in Crat. \u00a710, p. 4,12) between the conventionalist Hermogenes and the naturalist Cratylus, a judge who shows that they are both right and wrong. Aristotle is explicitly counted among the partisans of Hermogenes. On the whole, one can say that Proclus is very critical of Aristotle in in Crat.\r\n\r\nAmmonius, on the other hand, wanted to show that Plato and Aristotle were in complete harmony with each other, even where this is not evident. He too presents Socrates as a mediator between Hermogenes and Cratylus (in Int. 37,1), but this time Aristotle is not grouped together with Hermogenes but presented as being of the same mind as Socrates. As we shall see, Ammonius, when discussing the nature of names, takes his point of departure from Aristotle. Since Aristotle\u2019s idea of what a name is differs from Plato\u2019s, Ammonius will arrive at a concept of name that is fundamentally different from that of Proclus, who takes Plato as his starting point. On the assumption that Proclus, who for the most part appears to be quite consistent throughout his enormous \u0153uvre, did not radically change his views when lecturing on Int., we may thus infer from this that Ammonius was not slavishly following Proclus. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of Ammonius\u2019 interpretation of Cratylus\u2019 position in the dialogue. In order to harmonize Plato with Aristotle, Ammonius offers a rather original, albeit not very convincing, reading of that position.\r\n\r\nOnce we have established the fundamental difference between the two of them, we will be better able to explain a phenomenon to which Richard Sorabji has recently drawn attention: the absence of any interest in divine names in Ammonius\u2019 commentary. Finally, this case study will allow us to make a more general observation about the relation between the Athenian and Alexandrian commentators. [introduction p. 353-355]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U7I3LYIXJL83A4Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1532,"section_of":1419,"pages":"353-366","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality, 2016
By: de Haas, Frans A. J., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	413-436
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	de Haas, Frans A. J.
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

In this study, I have tried to show that Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s account of mixture has to be understood against the background of a discussion between three views of mixture that dominated the Aristotelian tradition as a whole. The starting point was Zabarella’s classification of solutions to the main problem of mixture: how to interpret Aristotle’s claim that the ingredients are preserved in the mixture in potentiality. In a sense, Proclus and Simplicius belong with Avicenna because they accept the preservation of the elements in actuality, along with reduced actuality and interaction in the realm of qualities. However, since they reject Aristotelian mixture and discuss the problem in terms of body vs. qualities rather than forms vs. qualities, they are best regarded as belonging to a different school altogether. Alexander is probably the main source of the influential account of Averroes. Philoponus belongs with the fourth group due to his criticism of Aristotle (or rather Alexander). He accepts the corruption of the ingredients while only their qualities are preserved in reduced actuality. It remains to be seen whether his influence on the medieval authors that subscribe to a similar view can be established. Zabarella’s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his ‘true’ interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella’s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella’s own theory of mixture still await further investigation. To conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle’s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors’ commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella’s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle’s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus. [conclusion p. 434-435]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1528","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1528,"authors_free":[{"id":2661,"entry_id":1528,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2662,"entry_id":1528,"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":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality","main_title":{"title":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality"},"abstract":"In this study, I have tried to show that Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s account of mixture has to be understood against the background of a discussion between three views of mixture that dominated the Aristotelian tradition as a whole. The starting point was Zabarella\u2019s classification of solutions to the main problem of mixture: how to interpret Aristotle\u2019s claim that the ingredients are preserved in the mixture in potentiality. In a sense, Proclus and Simplicius belong with Avicenna because they accept the preservation of the elements in actuality, along with reduced actuality and interaction in the realm of qualities. However, since they reject Aristotelian mixture and discuss the problem in terms of body vs. qualities rather than forms vs. qualities, they are best regarded as belonging to a different school altogether. Alexander is probably the main source of the influential account of Averroes. Philoponus belongs with the fourth group due to his criticism of Aristotle (or rather Alexander). He accepts the corruption of the ingredients while only their qualities are preserved in reduced actuality. It remains to be seen whether his influence on the medieval authors that subscribe to a similar view can be established.\r\n\r\nZabarella\u2019s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his \u2018true\u2019 interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella\u2019s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella\u2019s own theory of mixture still await further investigation.\r\n\r\nTo conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle\u2019s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors\u2019 commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella\u2019s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle\u2019s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus.\r\n[conclusion p. 434-435]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1528,"section_of":1419,"pages":"413-436","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus, 2016
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo, Rashed, Marwan, Sedley, David N., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	231-262
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N.
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and—identified as recently as 2005—fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE. Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work. But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium. The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy. The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14. Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship. The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories. At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors. The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics. Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century. [introduction p. 231-233]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU

Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories, 2016
By: Dillon, John, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	313-326
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Dillon, John
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

It will be seen that it is Iamblichus’ purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus’ distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1533","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1533,"authors_free":[{"id":2671,"entry_id":1533,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2672,"entry_id":1533,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"It will be seen that it is Iamblichus\u2019 purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus\u2019 distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1533,"section_of":1419,"pages":"313-326","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle, 2016
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	291-312
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Let me survey what transformations we have noticed in the idea of universals in the tradition of ancient commentary on Aristotle. Boethus downgraded them. Alexander multiplied grades, going beyond Aristotle by including as a grade on the same scale conceptual universals, but ameliorated the low status of both grades by giving the non-conceptual ones certain explanatory roles. He also innovated in discussing Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s Ideas by saying that even if Ideas and particulars were synonymous, sharing both name and definition, yet the definition might not be properly shared by the particular. Porphyry followed Alexander by accepting multigrade universals, but Ammonius influenced posterity by associating Porphyry with the idea that only concepts are universals. Proclus and Simplicius drew from Aristotle’s concepts in Alexander when they gave reasons why Aristotle was wrong on both counts about Plato’s Ideas: Ideas were not universals, except in a qualified sense, but they were causes. Proclus accepted three levels of reality: Ideas before the many particulars and two grades of universal, one in the many particulars and a conceptual one modeled after the many particulars. His pupil Ammonius accepted three levels but transformed the highest one into non-universal concepts in the mind of Plato’s Creator God. This was the first of two steps in presenting Aristotle as agreeing with Plato, contrary to the complaints of Proclus, because Aristotle’s God was a thinker who entertained concepts in his mind. Ammonius’ harmonization of Aristotle with Plato was completed by rejecting the claim of Proclus, and of Proclus’ teacher Syrianus, that Aristotle did not recognize his own arguments as implying that God was a Creator, just as Plato thought. Philoponus diverged from Ammonius, and from Ammonius’ anonymous editor, by giving to concepts the role of being what we define and predicate. But only in his theological work did he reach the final transformation of making concepts into the only universals, thus concluding that the Christian Trinity consisted of three godheads having no unity except as a universal Godhead existing only in our minds. [conclusion p. 312]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fOcJ4wUL2cQ6Ysg

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1534","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1534,"authors_free":[{"id":2673,"entry_id":1534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null},{"id":2674,"entry_id":1534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle"},"abstract":"Let me survey what transformations we have noticed in the idea of universals in the tradition of ancient commentary on Aristotle. Boethus downgraded them. Alexander multiplied grades, going beyond Aristotle by including as a grade on the same scale conceptual universals, but ameliorated the low status of both grades by giving the non-conceptual ones certain explanatory roles. He also innovated in discussing Aristotle\u2019s rejection of Plato\u2019s Ideas by saying that even if Ideas and particulars were synonymous, sharing both name and definition, yet the definition might not be properly shared by the particular.\r\n\r\nPorphyry followed Alexander by accepting multigrade universals, but Ammonius influenced posterity by associating Porphyry with the idea that only concepts are universals. Proclus and Simplicius drew from Aristotle\u2019s concepts in Alexander when they gave reasons why Aristotle was wrong on both counts about Plato\u2019s Ideas: Ideas were not universals, except in a qualified sense, but they were causes. Proclus accepted three levels of reality: Ideas before the many particulars and two grades of universal, one in the many particulars and a conceptual one modeled after the many particulars. His pupil Ammonius accepted three levels but transformed the highest one into non-universal concepts in the mind of Plato\u2019s Creator God.\r\n\r\nThis was the first of two steps in presenting Aristotle as agreeing with Plato, contrary to the complaints of Proclus, because Aristotle\u2019s God was a thinker who entertained concepts in his mind. Ammonius\u2019 harmonization of Aristotle with Plato was completed by rejecting the claim of Proclus, and of Proclus\u2019 teacher Syrianus, that Aristotle did not recognize his own arguments as implying that God was a Creator, just as Plato thought.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus diverged from Ammonius, and from Ammonius\u2019 anonymous editor, by giving to concepts the role of being what we define and predicate. But only in his theological work did he reach the final transformation of making concepts into the only universals, thus concluding that the Christian Trinity consisted of three godheads having no unity except as a universal Godhead existing only in our minds.\r\n[conclusion p. 312]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fOcJ4wUL2cQ6Ysg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1534,"section_of":1419,"pages":"291-312","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology, 2016
By: Rashed, Marwan, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	103-124
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle’s text. Boethus’ fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition—Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius—a coherent and unitary doctrine. His doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos’ nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories. For sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance. [introduction p. 103-104]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYH889DSksf6EXe

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1536,"authors_free":[{"id":2679,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","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":2680,"entry_id":1536,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology","main_title":{"title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"},"abstract":"Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle\u2019s text. Boethus\u2019 fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition\u2014Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius\u2014a coherent and unitary doctrine.\r\n\r\nHis doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos\u2019 nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories.\r\n\r\nFor sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance.\r\n[introduction p. 103-104]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xYH889DSksf6EXe","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":1536,"section_of":1419,"pages":"103-124","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus’ Canon, 2016
By: Hatzimichali, Myrto, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus’ Canon
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	81-102
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hatzimichali, Myrto
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

If we recall at this point the information gathered on the state of Plato’s text in the first century BCE, we can see that by comparison the study of Aristotle’s text was indeed revolutionized. In the case of the Aristotelian corpus, our sources tell a story of true peripeteia, with the appearance of new texts or at least new copies with special claims of antiquity and pedigree, and with the standardization and ordering of the canon in Andronicus’ Pinakes. A scrutiny of our sources has shown that it was the processes of cataloging, canon formation, and corpus organization that had the greatest impact on the texts we now read, and not the appearance of new ‘editions’ and text-critical initiatives. If this appears counterintuitive, we should remember that judgments about the importance or otherwise of ancient editorial activity can be misleading if they are too dependent on modern experiences and expectations. [conclusion p. 102]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hzJ6JONomuuLaQX

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1537","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1537,"authors_free":[{"id":2681,"entry_id":1537,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzimichali, Myrto","free_first_name":"Myrto","free_last_name":"Hatzimichali","norm_person":null},{"id":2682,"entry_id":1537,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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 Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon","main_title":{"title":"The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon"},"abstract":"If we recall at this point the information gathered on the state of Plato\u2019s text in the first century BCE, we can see that by comparison the study of Aristotle\u2019s text was indeed revolutionized. In the case of the Aristotelian corpus, our sources tell a story of true peripeteia, with the appearance of new texts or at least new copies with special claims of antiquity and pedigree, and with the standardization and ordering of the canon in Andronicus\u2019 Pinakes.\r\n\r\nA scrutiny of our sources has shown that it was the processes of cataloging, canon formation, and corpus organization that had the greatest impact on the texts we now read, and not the appearance of new \u2018editions\u2019 and text-critical initiatives. If this appears counterintuitive, we should remember that judgments about the importance or otherwise of ancient editorial activity can be misleading if they are too dependent on modern experiences and expectations. [conclusion p. 102]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hzJ6JONomuuLaQX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1537,"section_of":1419,"pages":"81-102","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

The Peripatetics: Aristotle’s Heirs 322 BCE - 200 CE, 2016
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	The Peripatetics: Aristotle’s Heirs 322 BCE - 200 CE
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2016
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The Peripatetics explores the development of Peripatetic thought from Theophrastus and Strato to the work of the commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias. The book examines whether the internal dynamics of this philosophical school allowed for a unity of Peripatetic thought, or whether there was a fundamental tension between philosophical creativity and the notions of core teachings and canonisation. The book discusses the major philosophical preoccupations of the Peripatetics, interactions with Hellenistic schools of thought, and the shift in focus among Greek philosophers in a changing political landscape. It is the first book of its kind to provide a survey of this important philosophical tradition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sUfFKmXdreu0SDf

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1553","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1553,"authors_free":[{"id":2716,"entry_id":1553,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Peripatetics: Aristotle\u2019s Heirs 322 BCE - 200 CE","main_title":{"title":"The Peripatetics: Aristotle\u2019s Heirs 322 BCE - 200 CE"},"abstract":" The Peripatetics explores the development of Peripatetic thought from Theophrastus and Strato to the work of the commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias. The book examines whether the internal dynamics of this philosophical school allowed for a unity of Peripatetic thought, or whether there was a fundamental tension between philosophical creativity and the notions of core teachings and canonisation. The book discusses the major philosophical preoccupations of the Peripatetics, interactions with Hellenistic schools of thought, and the shift in focus among Greek philosophers in a changing political landscape. It is the first book of its kind to provide a survey of this important philosophical tradition. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sUfFKmXdreu0SDf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}

Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share, 2015
By: Hatzistavrou, Antony

Title	Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	9
Issue	1
Pages	124 –125
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hatzistavrou, Antony
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is a fine addition to the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, which is under the general editorship of Richard Sorabji. The volume contains a translation of Simplicius’ commentary on the first five chapters of the eighth book of Aristotle’s Physics. The translators are Michael Chase (who has been involved in the translation of most of the chapters), Istvan Bodnár, and Michael Slate. The translation is accompanied by a series of notes. Some of the notes identify the ancient texts Simplicius refers to in his commentary, while others are primarily of philological interest. There is also a number of exegetical notes that are particularly useful in helping the reader understand the logic of Simplicius’ arguments and in elucidating the conceptual apparatus of his commentary. The volume also includes: A preface by Richard Sorabji, which explains the importance of the commentary for scholarship on the ancient commentators on Aristotle. An introduction by Michael Chase, which focuses on Simplicius’ polemic against Philoponus. A list of departures of the translation from Diels’ edition of Simplicius’ commentary. An English-Greek glossary. A Greek-English index. A subject index. A bibliography. The volume is clearly designed with the needs of the specialist scholar in mind and aims to become the primary reference text in English for the study of Simplicius’ commentary. Where does the importance of Simplicius’ commentary lie? It is instructive that both Sorabji, in his preface, and Chase, in his introduction, focus on its importance for the history of philosophy in late antiquity. First, it sheds light on an aspect of the philosophical and ideological debate between pagan and Christian thinkers at the end of antiquity concerning the intelligibility of the creation of the world. In Physics 8.1, Aristotle argues that time and motion are eternal. For any arbitrarily chosen moment in time or motion in space, one will always be able to identify a preceding and a subsequent moment or motion. This means that the world as a whole is eternal. Philoponus understood Aristotle’s arguments for the eternity of the universe to pose problems for a creationist account of the world, as advocated by the Judeo-Christian religion. In his polemic Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, Philoponus undertakes the task of defending a creationist account of the world by attacking Aristotle’s arguments for the eternity of motion and time. In his commentary, Simplicius attacks Philoponus, accusing him, among other things, of failing to understand and thus misrepresenting Aristotle’s position. A primary aim of his commentary on Physics 8.1 is, on the one hand, to identify and correct what he takes to be Philoponus’ distortions of Aristotle’s arguments and, on the other hand, to vindicate the cogency of Aristotle’s theory against Philoponus’ polemic. Simplicius makes no attempt to conceal his disdain for Philoponus’ scholarly abilities and intellectual integrity, describing his arguments as "garbage" and accusing him of being motivated by his "zeal for contradicting." In his introduction, Michael Chase clarifies that Simplicius’ attack is not restricted to issues concerning the proper interpretation of Aristotle’s theory but has a wider scope. It is meant as an attack on Philoponus’ Christian faith. In this attack, Simplicius occasionally reveals himself to be conversant with intricate Christian theological debates, such as the debate concerning the nature of Christ (i.e., whether Christ was begotten or made). Second, as Richard Sorabji mentions in his preface, Simplicius’ commentary reports and makes extensive use of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ lost commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. On Sorabji’s view, Simplicius, on the whole, reports Alexander’s views accurately. Furthermore, despite occasional disagreements about the interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy, Simplicius shows respect for Alexander’s abilities as a commentator and values his intellectual integrity. Simplicius’ attitude towards Alexander is thus sharply contrasted with his attitude towards Philoponus. Scholars interested in the debate between pagan and Christian philosophers at the end of antiquity and in the history of the ancient commentators on Aristotle will welcome the translation into English of Simplicius’ commentary. They may also find much material in the notes to the translation to grapple with. The volume will also appeal to anyone interested in Aristotle’s natural philosophy and, more specifically, in Aristotle’s views about the eternity of the world and the prime mover. The detailed English-Greek glossary and the indices make the volume a significant research tool likely to become a reference point in relevant scholarship. In addition, the volume is nicely produced. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/um5b6staCmgDtbZ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1014","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1014,"authors_free":[{"id":1530,"entry_id":1014,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":173,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Hatzistavrou","norm_person":{"id":173,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Hatzistavrou","full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share","main_title":{"title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share"},"abstract":"This is a fine addition to the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, which is under the general editorship of Richard Sorabji. The volume contains a translation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the first five chapters of the eighth book of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. The translators are Michael Chase (who has been involved in the translation of most of the chapters), Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, and Michael Slate. The translation is accompanied by a series of notes. Some of the notes identify the ancient texts Simplicius refers to in his commentary, while others are primarily of philological interest. There is also a number of exegetical notes that are particularly useful in helping the reader understand the logic of Simplicius\u2019 arguments and in elucidating the conceptual apparatus of his commentary. The volume also includes:\r\n\r\n A preface by Richard Sorabji, which explains the importance of the commentary for scholarship on the ancient commentators on Aristotle.\r\n An introduction by Michael Chase, which focuses on Simplicius\u2019 polemic against Philoponus.\r\n A list of departures of the translation from Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary.\r\n An English-Greek glossary.\r\n A Greek-English index.\r\n A subject index.\r\n A bibliography.\r\n\r\nThe volume is clearly designed with the needs of the specialist scholar in mind and aims to become the primary reference text in English for the study of Simplicius\u2019 commentary.\r\n\r\nWhere does the importance of Simplicius\u2019 commentary lie? It is instructive that both Sorabji, in his preface, and Chase, in his introduction, focus on its importance for the history of philosophy in late antiquity. First, it sheds light on an aspect of the philosophical and ideological debate between pagan and Christian thinkers at the end of antiquity concerning the intelligibility of the creation of the world. In Physics 8.1, Aristotle argues that time and motion are eternal. For any arbitrarily chosen moment in time or motion in space, one will always be able to identify a preceding and a subsequent moment or motion. This means that the world as a whole is eternal. Philoponus understood Aristotle\u2019s arguments for the eternity of the universe to pose problems for a creationist account of the world, as advocated by the Judeo-Christian religion. In his polemic Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, Philoponus undertakes the task of defending a creationist account of the world by attacking Aristotle\u2019s arguments for the eternity of motion and time.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary, Simplicius attacks Philoponus, accusing him, among other things, of failing to understand and thus misrepresenting Aristotle\u2019s position. A primary aim of his commentary on Physics 8.1 is, on the one hand, to identify and correct what he takes to be Philoponus\u2019 distortions of Aristotle\u2019s arguments and, on the other hand, to vindicate the cogency of Aristotle\u2019s theory against Philoponus\u2019 polemic. Simplicius makes no attempt to conceal his disdain for Philoponus\u2019 scholarly abilities and intellectual integrity, describing his arguments as \"garbage\" and accusing him of being motivated by his \"zeal for contradicting.\" In his introduction, Michael Chase clarifies that Simplicius\u2019 attack is not restricted to issues concerning the proper interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s theory but has a wider scope. It is meant as an attack on Philoponus\u2019 Christian faith. In this attack, Simplicius occasionally reveals himself to be conversant with intricate Christian theological debates, such as the debate concerning the nature of Christ (i.e., whether Christ was begotten or made).\r\n\r\nSecond, as Richard Sorabji mentions in his preface, Simplicius\u2019 commentary reports and makes extensive use of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019 lost commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics. On Sorabji\u2019s view, Simplicius, on the whole, reports Alexander\u2019s views accurately. Furthermore, despite occasional disagreements about the interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, Simplicius shows respect for Alexander\u2019s abilities as a commentator and values his intellectual integrity. Simplicius\u2019 attitude towards Alexander is thus sharply contrasted with his attitude towards Philoponus.\r\n\r\nScholars interested in the debate between pagan and Christian philosophers at the end of antiquity and in the history of the ancient commentators on Aristotle will welcome the translation into English of Simplicius\u2019 commentary. They may also find much material in the notes to the translation to grapple with. The volume will also appeal to anyone interested in Aristotle\u2019s natural philosophy and, more specifically, in Aristotle\u2019s views about the eternity of the world and the prime mover. The detailed English-Greek glossary and the indices make the volume a significant research tool likely to become a reference point in relevant scholarship. In addition, the volume is nicely produced. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/um5b6staCmgDtbZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":173,"full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1014,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"9","issue":"1","pages":"124 \u2013125"}},"sort":[2015]}

Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life, 2015
By: Wilberding, James, Marmodoro, Anna (Ed.), Prince, Brian (Ed.)

Title	Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2015
Published in	Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity
Pages	171-185
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wilberding, James
Editor(s)	Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian
Translator(s)

In the Neoplatonism of late antiquity, there was an exciting and revolutionary development in the understanding of the aetiology involved in the generation of living things. Here, it will be argued that this extended all the way to the Neoplatonic understanding of the causes of vegetative life. In a way, this should come as no surprise. Hippocratics, Aristotle, and Galen all viewed the processes involved in the generation of plants as analogous to those in the generation of embryos. In fact, the embryo was commonly held to have the life-status of a plant, with the mother taking on the role of the earth, at least at the earliest stages of its generation. As a result, these thinkers saw the same causal models that govern the generation of embryos at work in the generation of plants. Indeed, Galen even advises those who wish to investigate the formation of embryos to begin by looking into the generation of plants. The above-mentioned analogy is certainly part of the motivation behind Galen’s counsel, but equally important is that plants are simpler, in terms of both their physiology and their psychology, and thus more perspicuous objects of study. This is what gives us "hope to discover among the plants [biological] administration in its pure and unadulterated form." What is surprising is the conception of vegetative generation and life that results for Neoplatonists. As I shall show here, they ultimately concluded that the vegetative souls of individual plants are not self-sufficient. That is to say, the dependence of individual plants on the earth, in terms of both their generation and their preservation, extends beyond mere nutritive needs into the psychological domain of their life activities. In order to see how they arrived at this surprising conclusion, it will be necessary to begin with a brief sketch of Neoplatonic embryological theory, as it can be found across a wide range of core Neoplatonic authors and texts. This theory may be encapsulated into four theses: (i) First, all Neoplatonists are one-seed theorists: there is no female seed. In this, the Neoplatonists were in full agreement with Peripatetic embryology and in opposition to the two-seed theories advanced by the Hippocratics and Galen, though this opposition remains only implicit, as they never even acknowledge the possibility of a female seed. (ii) Second, Neoplatonists universally understand the seed to be a collection of form-principles (logoi) corresponding to individual parts of the father (and by extension of the offspring). Since these form-principles are immaterial, they are wholly present in every part of the seed, allowing the seed to be completely homoiomerous. (iii) Third, these seminal form-principles are in a state of potentiality. (iv) Fourth, they must be led to a state of actuality by an external cause that possesses these same principles in actuality. This cause is generally identified with the nature of the mother, who is additionally responsible for supplying the matter in the form of menses. It is these final two theses that establish the Neoplatonic theory as an exciting new development in ancient embryology. On Aristotle’s one-seed theory, by contrast, the male seed serves as the formal and efficient cause of embryological development, requiring only matter from the female. Aristotle establishes the self-sufficiency of the male seed as an efficient cause by attributing actual motion to it. Even on Galen’s two-seed theory, where one might have expected the female to be granted greater causal efficacy in the embryological process, the male seed remains the sole efficient cause, with the female seed more or less demoted to serving as nourishment for the male seed. What is revolutionary, therefore, in the Neoplatonic account of embryology is its placing the female on equal footing with the male in terms of their causal contributions in embryology. This new conceptualization of the respective contributions of the male and female should be seen as resulting from the application of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework of procession and reversion to embryology. Within this framework, the creation of an offspring consists of two distinct causal moments. In the first moment, procession, an inchoate offspring is generated that is a likeness of its progenitor but in a state of potentiality. The procession from the One, for example, results in the generation of the Pre-Intellect, which is still only potentially the Intellect. The second moment, reversion, is what accounts for this potentiality being led to a state of activity: by reversion, the Pre-Intellect becomes the genuine Intellect. When this framework is applied to embryology, the theses (iii) and (iv) above follow. The male’s emission of a seed is likened to procession, with the form-principles in the seed still being in a state of potentiality. This potentiality is led to actuality by the mother at conception and throughout the process of gestation. Thus, the male and the female are on a par insofar as each corresponds to one of the two moments of the One’s creative activity. [introduction p. 171-174]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ElblvTuFCEVCpgN

{"_index":"sire","_id":"913","_score":null,"_source":{"id":913,"authors_free":[{"id":1346,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1347,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1348,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life"},"abstract":"In the Neoplatonism of late antiquity, there was an exciting and revolutionary development in the understanding of the aetiology involved in the generation of living things. Here, it will be argued that this extended all the way to the Neoplatonic understanding of the causes of vegetative life. In a way, this should come as no surprise. Hippocratics, Aristotle, and Galen all viewed the processes involved in the generation of plants as analogous to those in the generation of embryos. In fact, the embryo was commonly held to have the life-status of a plant, with the mother taking on the role of the earth, at least at the earliest stages of its generation. As a result, these thinkers saw the same causal models that govern the generation of embryos at work in the generation of plants. Indeed, Galen even advises those who wish to investigate the formation of embryos to begin by looking into the generation of plants. The above-mentioned analogy is certainly part of the motivation behind Galen\u2019s counsel, but equally important is that plants are simpler, in terms of both their physiology and their psychology, and thus more perspicuous objects of study. This is what gives us \"hope to discover among the plants [biological] administration in its pure and unadulterated form.\"\r\n\r\nWhat is surprising is the conception of vegetative generation and life that results for Neoplatonists. As I shall show here, they ultimately concluded that the vegetative souls of individual plants are not self-sufficient. That is to say, the dependence of individual plants on the earth, in terms of both their generation and their preservation, extends beyond mere nutritive needs into the psychological domain of their life activities. In order to see how they arrived at this surprising conclusion, it will be necessary to begin with a brief sketch of Neoplatonic embryological theory, as it can be found across a wide range of core Neoplatonic authors and texts. This theory may be encapsulated into four theses:\r\n\r\n(i) First, all Neoplatonists are one-seed theorists: there is no female seed. In this, the Neoplatonists were in full agreement with Peripatetic embryology and in opposition to the two-seed theories advanced by the Hippocratics and Galen, though this opposition remains only implicit, as they never even acknowledge the possibility of a female seed.\r\n\r\n(ii) Second, Neoplatonists universally understand the seed to be a collection of form-principles (logoi) corresponding to individual parts of the father (and by extension of the offspring). Since these form-principles are immaterial, they are wholly present in every part of the seed, allowing the seed to be completely homoiomerous.\r\n\r\n(iii) Third, these seminal form-principles are in a state of potentiality.\r\n\r\n(iv) Fourth, they must be led to a state of actuality by an external cause that possesses these same principles in actuality. This cause is generally identified with the nature of the mother, who is additionally responsible for supplying the matter in the form of menses.\r\n\r\nIt is these final two theses that establish the Neoplatonic theory as an exciting new development in ancient embryology. On Aristotle\u2019s one-seed theory, by contrast, the male seed serves as the formal and efficient cause of embryological development, requiring only matter from the female. Aristotle establishes the self-sufficiency of the male seed as an efficient cause by attributing actual motion to it. Even on Galen\u2019s two-seed theory, where one might have expected the female to be granted greater causal efficacy in the embryological process, the male seed remains the sole efficient cause, with the female seed more or less demoted to serving as nourishment for the male seed.\r\n\r\nWhat is revolutionary, therefore, in the Neoplatonic account of embryology is its placing the female on equal footing with the male in terms of their causal contributions in embryology. This new conceptualization of the respective contributions of the male and female should be seen as resulting from the application of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework of procession and reversion to embryology. Within this framework, the creation of an offspring consists of two distinct causal moments. In the first moment, procession, an inchoate offspring is generated that is a likeness of its progenitor but in a state of potentiality. The procession from the One, for example, results in the generation of the Pre-Intellect, which is still only potentially the Intellect. The second moment, reversion, is what accounts for this potentiality being led to a state of activity: by reversion, the Pre-Intellect becomes the genuine Intellect.\r\n\r\nWhen this framework is applied to embryology, the theses (iii) and (iv) above follow. The male\u2019s emission of a seed is likened to procession, with the form-principles in the seed still being in a state of potentiality. This potentiality is led to actuality by the mother at conception and throughout the process of gestation. Thus, the male and the female are on a par insofar as each corresponds to one of the two moments of the One\u2019s creative activity. [introduction p. 171-174]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ElblvTuFCEVCpgN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":913,"section_of":155,"pages":"171-185","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

Aristotle's Categories in the Early Roman Empire, 2015
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	Aristotle's Categories in the Early Roman Empire
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This volume studies the origin and evolution of philosophical interest in Aristotle's Categories. After centuries of neglect, the Categories became the focus of philosophical discussion in the first century BCE, and was subsequently adopted as the basic introductory textbook for philosophy in the Aristotelian and Platonic traditions. In this study, Michael Griffin builds on earlier work to reconstruct the fragments of the earliest commentaries on the treatise, and illuminates the earliest arguments for Aristotle's approach to logic as the foundation of higher education. Griffin argues that Andronicus of Rhodes played a critical role in the Categories' rise to prominence, and that his motivations for interest in the text can be recovered. The volume also tracks Platonic and Stoic debate over the Categories, and suggests reasons for its adoption into the mainstream of both schools. Covering the period from the first century BCE to the third century CE, the volume focuses on individual philosophers whose views can be recovered from later, mostly Neoplatonic sources, including Andronicus of Rhodes, Eudorus of Alexandria, Pseudo-Archytas, Lucius, Nicostratus, Athenodorus, and Cornutus. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CCYdqxs5shlkkzs

{"_index":"sire","_id":"248","_score":null,"_source":{"id":248,"authors_free":[{"id":317,"entry_id":248,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","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":"Aristotle's Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle's Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"This volume studies the origin and evolution of philosophical interest in Aristotle's Categories. After centuries of neglect, the Categories became the focus of philosophical discussion in the first century BCE, and was subsequently adopted as the basic introductory textbook for philosophy in the Aristotelian and Platonic traditions.\r\n\r\nIn this study, Michael Griffin builds on earlier work to reconstruct the fragments of the earliest commentaries on the treatise, and illuminates the earliest arguments for Aristotle's approach to logic as the foundation of higher education. Griffin argues that Andronicus of Rhodes played a critical role in the Categories' rise to prominence, and that his motivations for interest in the text can be recovered. The volume also tracks Platonic and Stoic debate over the Categories, and suggests reasons for its adoption into the mainstream of both schools.\r\n\r\nCovering the period from the first century BCE to the third century CE, the volume focuses on individual philosophers whose views can be recovered from later, mostly Neoplatonic sources, including Andronicus of Rhodes, Eudorus of Alexandria, Pseudo-Archytas, Lucius, Nicostratus, Athenodorus, and Cornutus. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CCYdqxs5shlkkzs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":248,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, préface par Ph. Hoffmann, 2015
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, préface par Ph. Hoffmann
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2015
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	33
Pages	115-128
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Ajoutons que Ph. Soulier donne en annexe un résumé analytique du texte de Simplicius. À défaut d’une traduction complète (qui est annoncée aux éditions des Belles Lettres), il s’agit là d’un formidable support pour suivre les analyses aussi denses que rigoureuses. Simplicius n’a ni le prestige d’un Proclus ni l’audace philosophique d’un Damascius. Sans doute son rôle de Commentateur d’Aristote est à la fois la cause de sa relégation et le cœur de son originalité. Contraint de suivre la logique d’un texte différent de celle du système qui lui sert de grille d’analyse, il tire de cette lecture systématique des éléments qu’il doit harmoniser avec l’orthodoxie néoplatonicienne. À cet égard, la question de l’infini est symptomatique de sa méthode, puisqu’elle montre de quelle façon se construit une doctrine originale sur la base du texte aristotélicien et de la toile de fond néoplatonicienne : Simplicius évince l’ἄπειρον du sensible, pour le réserver à l’intelligible, mais il retient un procès à l’infini, τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον, et lui attribue une assise ontologique. Autrement dit, il n’admet pas simplement un « bon » et un « mauvais » infini, l’un qui vaudrait dans l’intelligible, l’autre qui en serait l’image sensible et dégradée. Il pose plutôt une forme positive de l’infinité dans le sensible même. On peut dès lors remercier Ph. Soulier d’avoir fait la pleine lumière sur la revalorisation du sensible dans les dernières pages du néoplatonisme tardo-antique, c’est-à-dire d’avoir exposé avec une telle minutie comment l’analyse de la Physique permettait de déployer les propriétés de l’infini qui étaient caractéristiques du sensible, en accord avec la thèse néoplatonicienne la plus autorisée. [conclusion p. 127-128]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5DpQiBfHF99tVXi

{"_index":"sire","_id":"406","_score":null,"_source":{"id":406,"authors_free":[{"id":2456,"entry_id":406,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, pr\u00e9face par Ph. Hoffmann","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, pr\u00e9face par Ph. Hoffmann"},"abstract":"Ajoutons que Ph. Soulier donne en annexe un r\u00e9sum\u00e9 analytique du texte de Simplicius. \u00c0 d\u00e9faut d\u2019une traduction compl\u00e8te (qui est annonc\u00e9e aux \u00e9ditions des Belles Lettres), il s\u2019agit l\u00e0 d\u2019un formidable support pour suivre les analyses aussi denses que rigoureuses.\r\n\r\nSimplicius n\u2019a ni le prestige d\u2019un Proclus ni l\u2019audace philosophique d\u2019un Damascius. Sans doute son r\u00f4le de Commentateur d\u2019Aristote est \u00e0 la fois la cause de sa rel\u00e9gation et le c\u0153ur de son originalit\u00e9. Contraint de suivre la logique d\u2019un texte diff\u00e9rent de celle du syst\u00e8me qui lui sert de grille d\u2019analyse, il tire de cette lecture syst\u00e9matique des \u00e9l\u00e9ments qu\u2019il doit harmoniser avec l\u2019orthodoxie n\u00e9oplatonicienne.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 cet \u00e9gard, la question de l\u2019infini est symptomatique de sa m\u00e9thode, puisqu\u2019elle montre de quelle fa\u00e7on se construit une doctrine originale sur la base du texte aristot\u00e9licien et de la toile de fond n\u00e9oplatonicienne : Simplicius \u00e9vince l\u2019\u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd du sensible, pour le r\u00e9server \u00e0 l\u2019intelligible, mais il retient un proc\u00e8s \u00e0 l\u2019infini, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, et lui attribue une assise ontologique. Autrement dit, il n\u2019admet pas simplement un \u00ab bon \u00bb et un \u00ab mauvais \u00bb infini, l\u2019un qui vaudrait dans l\u2019intelligible, l\u2019autre qui en serait l\u2019image sensible et d\u00e9grad\u00e9e. Il pose plut\u00f4t une forme positive de l\u2019infinit\u00e9 dans le sensible m\u00eame.\r\n\r\nOn peut d\u00e8s lors remercier Ph. Soulier d\u2019avoir fait la pleine lumi\u00e8re sur la revalorisation du sensible dans les derni\u00e8res pages du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardo-antique, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire d\u2019avoir expos\u00e9 avec une telle minutie comment l\u2019analyse de la Physique permettait de d\u00e9ployer les propri\u00e9t\u00e9s de l\u2019infini qui \u00e9taient caract\u00e9ristiques du sensible, en accord avec la th\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne la plus autoris\u00e9e.\r\n[conclusion p. 127-128]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5DpQiBfHF99tVXi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":406,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"33","issue":"","pages":"115-128"}},"sort":[2015]}

Simplicius on Predication, 2015
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	Simplicius on Predication
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	33
Issue	2
Pages	173-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper deals with Simplicius’ discussion of Aristotle’s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle’s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius’ extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yxvHetwfUgsPb6f

{"_index":"sire","_id":"407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":407,"authors_free":[{"id":545,"entry_id":407,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Predication","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Predication"},"abstract":"This paper deals with Simplicius\u2019 discussion of Aristotle\u2019s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle\u2019s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius\u2019 extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yxvHetwfUgsPb6f","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":407,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"173-200"}},"sort":[2015]}

Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity, 2015
By: Marmodoro, Anna (Ed.), Prince, Brian (Ed.)

Title	Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Cambridge
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian
Translator(s)

Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP

{"_index":"sire","_id":"155","_score":null,"_source":{"id":155,"authors_free":[{"id":1857,"entry_id":155,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1858,"entry_id":155,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato, 2015
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut,

Title	Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition
Volume	18
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Chase, Michael(Chase, Michael ) .

Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato by I. Hadot deals with the Neoplatonist tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. It shows that this harmonizing tendency, born in Middle Platonism, prevailed in Neoplatonism from Porphyry and Iamblichus, where it persisted until the end of this philosophy. Hadot aims to illustrate that it is not the different schools themselves, for instance those of Athens and Alexandria, that differ from one another by the intensity of the will to harmonization, but groups of philosophers within these schools.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xEQzdHCzqjAUU9w

{"_index":"sire","_id":"217","_score":null,"_source":{"id":217,"authors_free":[{"id":278,"entry_id":217,"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":2562,"entry_id":217,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato","main_title":{"title":"Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato"},"abstract":"Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato by I. Hadot deals with the Neoplatonist tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. It shows that this harmonizing tendency, born in Middle Platonism, prevailed in Neoplatonism from Porphyry and Iamblichus, where it persisted until the end of this philosophy. Hadot aims to illustrate that it is not the different schools themselves, for instance those of Athens and Alexandria, that differ from one another by the intensity of the will to harmonization, but groups of philosophers within these schools.","btype":1,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xEQzdHCzqjAUU9w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":217,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition","volume":"18","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

Le σκοπός du traité aristotélicien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Exégèse, dialectique, théologie, 2015
By: Hoffmann, Philippe

Title	Le σκοπός du traité aristotélicien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Exégèse, dialectique, théologie
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2015
Journal	Studia graeco-arabica
Volume	5
Pages	27-51
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

A six-page Prologue introduces the commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo written by Simplicius after 529 AD. As usual in the exegeses typical of the Neoplatonic schools of late Antiquity, this Prologue addresses a series of preliminary questions that are meant to steer the interpretation in its entirety, as well as to frame the text to be commented upon within the reading canon of the Aristotelian works, which were intended to provide the propaedeutics to the reading canon of Plato’s dialogues. Simplicius addresses the question of the scope of De Caelo, discussing the interpretations advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, and Syrianus. According to Alexander, this treatise deals with the universe as a whole, as well as with the five simple bodies contained in it. It was with Iamblichus, who advocated the idea that for each Platonic dialogue there was only one skopos, that the unity of a philosophical work was raised to the rank of a general rule. According to Iamblichus, the skopos of the De Caelo is the divine body of heaven. As a consequence, the primary elements that depend upon the heavens are included in the treatise. Syrianus deepens the theological tendency implied in Iamblichus’ interpretation: for him, the skopos of the De Caelo is primarily the divine body of heaven, and only secondarily the set of sublunar elements. Simplicius treasures the commentary by Alexander; nevertheless, he questions the skopos assigned by him: Alexander underestimated the importance of the unity of the treatise, even though his intention to account for each and every question raised by Aristotle was laudable. Contrarily, Syrianus was right in emphasizing the theological vein of the De Caelo, but focussed only on the section on the divine body of heaven, playing down books III and IV as if they were only ancillary, thus forgetting that the skopos must account for the whole of the treatise at hand. Between the two positions, Simplicius advocates the idea of a synthetical skopos, following in the footsteps of Iamblichus’ interpretation, but taking systematically into account the best of Alexander’s. The skopos of the De Caelo is the divine heaven, that “communicates” its perfections to the entire universe. Simplicius’ position is revealed to be very different with respect to that of other commentators like Ammonius and Philoponus, who both considered that the title was self-evident and required no special investigation. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IkThMj3dyL4pqPR

{"_index":"sire","_id":"581","_score":null,"_source":{"id":581,"authors_free":[{"id":824,"entry_id":581,"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}}],"entry_title":"Le \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, dialectique, th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Le \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, dialectique, th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"A six-page Prologue introduces the commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo written by Simplicius after 529 AD. As usual in the exegeses typical of the Neoplatonic schools of late Antiquity, this Prologue addresses a series of preliminary \r\nquestions that are meant to steer the interpretation in its entirety, as well as to frame the text to be commented upon within the reading canon of the Aristotelian works, which were intended to provide the propaedeutics to the reading canon of Plato\u2019s dialogues. Simplicius addresses the question of the scope of De Caelo, discussing the interpretations advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, and Syrianus. According to Alexander, this treatise deals with the universe as a whole, as well as with the five simple bodies contained in it. It was with Iamblichus, who advocated the idea that for each Platonic dialogue there was only one skopos, that the unity of a philosophical work was raised \r\nto the rank of a general rule. According to Iamblichus, the skopos of the De Caelo is the divine body of heaven. As a consequence, the primary elements that depend upon the heavens are included in the treatise. Syrianus deepens \r\nthe theological tendency implied in Iamblichus\u2019 interpretation: for him, the skopos of the De Caelo is primarily the divine body of heaven, and only secondarily the set of sublunar elements. Simplicius treasures the commentary by \r\nAlexander; nevertheless, he questions the skopos assigned by him: Alexander underestimated the importance of the unity of the treatise, even though his intention to account for each and every question raised by Aristotle was laudable. Contrarily, Syrianus was right in emphasizing the theological vein of the De Caelo, but focussed only on the section on the divine body of heaven, playing down books III and IV as if they were only ancillary, thus forgetting that the skopos must account for the whole of the treatise at hand. Between the two positions, Simplicius advocates the idea of a synthetical skopos, following in the footsteps of Iamblichus\u2019 interpretation, but taking systematically into account the best of Alexander\u2019s. The skopos of the De Caelo is the divine heaven, that \u201ccommunicates\u201d its perfections to the \r\nentire universe. Simplicius\u2019 position is revealed to be very different with respect to that of other commentators like Ammonius and Philoponus, who both considered that the title was self-evident and required no special investigation. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IkThMj3dyL4pqPR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":581,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"27-51"}},"sort":[2015]}

Review of: I. Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines, 2015
By: Chemi, Germana

Title	Review of: I. Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2015
Journal	Studia graeco-arabica
Volume	5
Pages	385-388
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chemi, Germana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L’A. présente en ce volume un bilan raisonné des recherches contemporaines concernant la vie et l’œuvre du néoplatonicien Simplicius, ainsi que des études sur sa réception dans le monde arabe. Le volume contient aussi deux contributions de Ph. Vallat portant respectivement sur la biographie de Simplicius (p. 102-129) et sur la réception arabe de son commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote (p. 241-264). La première section (Biographie, p. 13-134), qui fait suite à la préface (p. 11-12), concerne la biographie de Simplicius. Cette partie du volume aborde les sujets suivants : le nom de Simplicius (p. 13-14), son origine et sa formation (p. 14-16), le milieu culturel d’Alexandrie à l’époque de ses études avec Ammonius (p. 16-17), le départ d’Athènes (p. 17-19), l’exil en Perse (p. 23-24) et la question du lieu où Simplicius et ses collègues se seraient rendus après avoir quitté la cour de Chosroès Ier (p. 25-129). Cette section s’achève par un sommaire général (p. 130-133) et trois épigrammes que l’A. attribue à Simplicius (p. 133-134). La deuxième section (Les œuvres conservées sauf In Phys. et In De Caelo, p. 135-266) concerne les commentaires de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Épictète (p. 148-181), sur le De Anima (p. 182-228) et sur les Catégories d’Aristote (p. 228-266). L’A. introduit son analyse de ces trois ouvrages par un aperçu général sur la datation des commentaires de Simplicius (p. 135-148) : conformément à la thèse déjà avancée dans ses travaux antérieurs, elle considère les commentaires de Simplicius comme ayant tous été écrits après l’exil en Perse. La troisième section (Les œuvres partiellement ou entièrement perdues, p. 267-283) a pour objet les textes suivants, que l’A. attribue à Simplicius : un commentaire aux Éléments d’Euclide, un commentaire sur le Phédon (p. 267-269), un épitomé de la Physique de Théophraste (p. 269), un commentaire sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote (p. 269-277), un commentaire sur La secte pythagoricienne de Jamblique (p. 277-278), un commentaire sur les Météorologiques d’Aristote (p. 279-280), un commentaire sur l’Ars oratoria d’Hermogène (p. 280-282) et un traité sur les syllogismes (p. 282). Suivent enfin un Épilogue (p. 285-288) et une bibliographie (p. 289-311). [introduction p. 385]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1310","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1310,"authors_free":[{"id":1936,"entry_id":1310,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":99,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chemi, Germana","free_first_name":"Germana","free_last_name":"Chemi","norm_person":{"id":99,"first_name":"Germana","last_name":"Chemi","full_name":"Chemi, Germana","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines","main_title":{"title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines"},"abstract":"L\u2019A. pr\u00e9sente en ce volume un bilan raisonn\u00e9 des recherches contemporaines concernant la vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre du n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius, ainsi que des \u00e9tudes sur sa r\u00e9ception dans le monde arabe. Le volume contient aussi deux contributions de Ph. Vallat portant respectivement sur la biographie de Simplicius (p. 102-129) et sur la r\u00e9ception arabe de son commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote (p. 241-264).\r\n\r\nLa premi\u00e8re section (Biographie, p. 13-134), qui fait suite \u00e0 la pr\u00e9face (p. 11-12), concerne la biographie de Simplicius. Cette partie du volume aborde les sujets suivants : le nom de Simplicius (p. 13-14), son origine et sa formation (p. 14-16), le milieu culturel d\u2019Alexandrie \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque de ses \u00e9tudes avec Ammonius (p. 16-17), le d\u00e9part d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes (p. 17-19), l\u2019exil en Perse (p. 23-24) et la question du lieu o\u00f9 Simplicius et ses coll\u00e8gues se seraient rendus apr\u00e8s avoir quitt\u00e9 la cour de Chosro\u00e8s Ier (p. 25-129). Cette section s\u2019ach\u00e8ve par un sommaire g\u00e9n\u00e9ral (p. 130-133) et trois \u00e9pigrammes que l\u2019A. attribue \u00e0 Simplicius (p. 133-134).\r\n\r\nLa deuxi\u00e8me section (Les \u0153uvres conserv\u00e9es sauf In Phys. et In De Caelo, p. 135-266) concerne les commentaires de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te (p. 148-181), sur le De Anima (p. 182-228) et sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote (p. 228-266). L\u2019A. introduit son analyse de ces trois ouvrages par un aper\u00e7u g\u00e9n\u00e9ral sur la datation des commentaires de Simplicius (p. 135-148) : conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la th\u00e8se d\u00e9j\u00e0 avanc\u00e9e dans ses travaux ant\u00e9rieurs, elle consid\u00e8re les commentaires de Simplicius comme ayant tous \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9crits apr\u00e8s l\u2019exil en Perse.\r\n\r\nLa troisi\u00e8me section (Les \u0153uvres partiellement ou enti\u00e8rement perdues, p. 267-283) a pour objet les textes suivants, que l\u2019A. attribue \u00e0 Simplicius : un commentaire aux \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide, un commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don (p. 267-269), un \u00e9pitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste (p. 269), un commentaire sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote (p. 269-277), un commentaire sur La secte pythagoricienne de Jamblique (p. 277-278), un commentaire sur les M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques d\u2019Aristote (p. 279-280), un commentaire sur l\u2019Ars oratoria d\u2019Hermog\u00e8ne (p. 280-282) et un trait\u00e9 sur les syllogismes (p. 282).\r\n\r\nSuivent enfin un \u00c9pilogue (p. 285-288) et une bibliographie (p. 289-311).\r\n[introduction p. 385]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":99,"full_name":"Chemi, Germana","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1310,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"385-388"}},"sort":[2015]}

On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	Aestimatio
Volume	12
Pages	56-82
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contem¬poraines. Un bilan critique," which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iph5X72ry3ZiZ9P

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1322","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1322,"authors_free":[{"id":1956,"entry_id":1322,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot","main_title":{"title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"},"abstract":"This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contem\u00acporaines. Un bilan critique,\" which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iph5X72ry3ZiZ9P","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1322,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"56-82"}},"sort":[2015]}

Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon, 2015
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine, Delcomminette, Sylvain (Ed.), Hoine, Pieter d’ (Ed.), Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.)

Title	Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2015
Published in	Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo
Pages	293-310
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)	Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Translator(s)

Une qualité indéniable des Commentaires de Simplicius réside dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Présocratiques, des Platoniciens et des Péripatéticiens, mais surtout d’Aristote et de Platon. C’est notamment à travers cet usage des références que l’on peut mesurer l’originalité (ou la particularité) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses thèses s’élaborent au fil d’une exégèse qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synthèse de la culture païenne. Dès lors, c’est dans une certaine pratique de l’intertextualité que se joue sa contribution à l’histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interprétation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition. Or, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n’a pas écrit de commentaire sur le Phédon. En tant que membre de l’École d’Athènes, il a certes dû lire et interpréter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-être même assisté à l’une (au moins) des deux séries de cours dispensées par son maître. À tout le moins, il devait en connaître l’existence et avoir pris position par rapport à une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interprétation du Phédon, il faut emprunter un chemin détourné, en examinant les citations et allusions liées à ce dialogue à travers ses différents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Phédon et à quelle fin ? Dans cette étude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d’abord, j’aimerais examiner l’apport personnel de Simplicius à l’interprétation du Phédon, par rapport à la tradition dans laquelle il s’inscrit. Ensuite, plus particulièrement, je voudrais évaluer la distance de Simplicius à l’égard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l’École platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j’espère contribuer à la compréhension de la méthode et de l’originalité de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI

Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo, 2015
By: Delcomminette, Sylvain (Ed.), Hoine, Pieter d’ (Ed.), Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia antiqua
Volume	140
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Translator(s)

Plato’s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools. This volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo’s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1411","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1411,"authors_free":[{"id":2207,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":391,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","free_first_name":"Sylvain","free_last_name":"Delcomminette","norm_person":{"id":391,"first_name":"Sylvain","last_name":"Delcomminette","full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2208,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter","free_last_name":"Hoine, d\u2019","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2209,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine ","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine ","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo"},"abstract":"Plato\u2019s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.\r\nThis volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo\u2019s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":391,"full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série
Volume	10
Pages	1-23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term « contamination » (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik. By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium’s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts – not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule « the principle of collation » ; it can be formulated like this : « Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of collation of at least two different manuscripts. » [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis ","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term \u00ab contamination \u00bb (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik. By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium\u2019s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts \u2013 not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule \u00ab the principle of collation \u00bb ; it can be formulated like this : \u00ab Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of \r\ncollation of at least two different manuscripts. \u00bb [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":[2015]}

Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question, 2015
By: Bowen, Alan C., Holmes, Brooke (Ed.), Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2015
Published in	The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden
Pages	67-73
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)	Holmes, Brooke , Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich
Translator(s)

The debate in the sixth century between the Christian philosopher JohnPhiloponus and the Platonist philosopher Simplicius about whether the cosmos was created or eternal was of momentous importance not only to their understanding of the world and of the means to salvation from its trials but also to their views of what astronomical science was and how it should proceed in making its arguments. This brief chapter outlines this debate and then explores the main lines of attack to be taken in determining how Thomas Aquinas, who was supplied by William of Moerbeke with a translation of the text in which Simplicius responds to Philoponus, dealt with Simplicius’ reading of Aristotle in advancing a vigorous polemic against his Christian faith. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rIm87BQ2FbfPk81

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1482","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1482,"authors_free":[{"id":2564,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2567,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":549,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Holmes, Brooke","free_first_name":"Brooke","free_last_name":"Holmes","norm_person":{"id":549,"first_name":"Brooke","last_name":"Holmes","full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017511543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2568,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":550,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","free_first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","free_last_name":"Fischer","norm_person":{"id":550,"first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","last_name":"Fischer","full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13237076X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question"},"abstract":"The debate in the sixth century between the Christian philosopher JohnPhiloponus and the Platonist philosopher Simplicius about whether the cosmos was created or eternal was of momentous importance not only to their understanding of the world and of the means to salvation from its trials but also to their views of what astronomical science was and how it should proceed in making its arguments. This brief chapter outlines this debate and then explores the main lines of attack to be taken in determining how Thomas Aquinas, who was supplied by William of Moerbeke with a translation of the text in which Simplicius responds to Philoponus, dealt with Simplicius\u2019 reading of Aristotle in advancing a vigorous polemic against his Christian faith. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rIm87BQ2FbfPk81","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":549,"full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":550,"full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1482,"section_of":1483,"pages":"67-73","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1483,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Holmes-Fisher_2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Our understanding of science, mathematics, and medicine today can be deeply enriched by studying the historical roots of these areas of inquiry in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. The present volume brings together contributions from more than thirty of the most important scholars working in these fields in the United States and Europe in honor of the eminent historian of ancient science and medicine Heinrich von Staden. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gq9gFanQtC9OclL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1483,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"338","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden, 2015
By: Holmes, Brooke (Ed.), Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich (Ed.)

Title	The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Volume	338
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Holmes, Brooke , Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich
Translator(s)

Our understanding of science, mathematics, and medicine today can be deeply enriched by studying the historical roots of these areas of inquiry in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. The present volume brings together contributions from more than thirty of the most important scholars working in these fields in the United States and Europe in honor of the eminent historian of ancient science and medicine Heinrich von Staden. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1YGQJ7tLmJ8jROq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1483","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1483,"authors_free":[{"id":2565,"entry_id":1483,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":549,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Holmes, Brooke","free_first_name":"Brooke","free_last_name":"Holmes","norm_person":{"id":549,"first_name":"Brooke","last_name":"Holmes","full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017511543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2566,"entry_id":1483,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":550,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","free_first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","free_last_name":"Fischer","norm_person":{"id":550,"first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","last_name":"Fischer","full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13237076X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden","main_title":{"title":"The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden"},"abstract":"Our understanding of science, mathematics, and medicine today can be deeply enriched by studying the historical roots of these areas of inquiry in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. The present volume brings together contributions from more than thirty of the most important scholars working in these fields in the United States and Europe in honor of the eminent historian of ancient science and medicine Heinrich von Staden. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1YGQJ7tLmJ8jROq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":549,"full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":550,"full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1483,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"338","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

La puissance de l'intelligible: la théorie plotinienne des Formes au miroir de l'héritage médioplatonicien, 2015
By: Michalewski, Alexandra

Title	La puissance de l'intelligible: la théorie plotinienne des Formes au miroir de l'héritage médioplatonicien
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2015
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Michalewski, Alexandra
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L'ouvrage propose une histoire de l’interprétation de la nature des Formes intelligibles d’Antiochus à Plotin. Il met en lumière l’importance du refus plotinien de l’artificialisme médioplatonicien qui considère les Formes comme des pensées du dieu et subordonne leur causalité à celle du démiurge, fabricant du monde. En considérant les Formes comme des réalités vivantes et intellectives, Plotin bouleverse le sens de la causalité paradigmatique de l’intelligible. Il reprend les concepts de la théologie aristotélicienne, les détourne et les met au service d’une théorie de la causalité des intelligibles qui répond aux objections du Stagirite contre l’hypothèse des Formes. S’appuyant sur l’identité de l’intellect et des intelligibles, il montre que c’est précisément en restant en elles-mêmes que les Formes exercent une puissance générative, productrice du sensible. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xzSLdm0SmNASjln

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1505","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1505,"authors_free":[{"id":2615,"entry_id":1505,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":553,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","free_first_name":"Alexandra","free_last_name":"Michalewski","norm_person":{"id":553,"first_name":"Alexandra","last_name":"Michalewski","full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194315127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La puissance de l'intelligible: la th\u00e9orie plotinienne des Formes au miroir de l'h\u00e9ritage m\u00e9dioplatonicien","main_title":{"title":"La puissance de l'intelligible: la th\u00e9orie plotinienne des Formes au miroir de l'h\u00e9ritage m\u00e9dioplatonicien"},"abstract":"L'ouvrage propose une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de la nature des Formes intelligibles d\u2019Antiochus \u00e0 Plotin. Il met en lumi\u00e8re l\u2019importance du refus plotinien de l\u2019artificialisme m\u00e9dioplatonicien qui consid\u00e8re les Formes comme des pens\u00e9es du dieu et subordonne leur causalit\u00e9 \u00e0 celle du d\u00e9miurge, fabricant du monde. En consid\u00e9rant les Formes comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives, Plotin bouleverse le sens de la causalit\u00e9 paradigmatique de l\u2019intelligible. Il reprend les concepts de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne, les d\u00e9tourne et les met au service d\u2019une th\u00e9orie de la causalit\u00e9 des intelligibles qui r\u00e9pond aux objections du Stagirite contre l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se des Formes. S\u2019appuyant sur l\u2019identit\u00e9 de l\u2019intellect et des intelligibles, il montre que c\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment en restant en elles-m\u00eames que les Formes exercent une puissance g\u00e9n\u00e9rative, productrice du sensible. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xzSLdm0SmNASjln","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":553,"full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1505,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?, 2015
By: Baltussen, Han, Marmodoro, Anna (Ed.), Prince, Brian (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2015
Published in	Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity
Pages	111-128
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian
Translator(s)

One of Simplicius’ contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of ‘principle,’ ‘cause,’ and ‘element’ in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21–20.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the ‘elements’ requires further attention is clear from Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles. My aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius’ technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius’ own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle’s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle’s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle’s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius’ own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered—the different ‘sources,’ so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/g1SyUqDyUcBATre

{"_index":"sire","_id":"912","_score":null,"_source":{"id":912,"authors_free":[{"id":1343,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2089,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2090,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"},"abstract":"One of Simplicius\u2019 contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of \u2018principle,\u2019 \u2018cause,\u2019 and \u2018element\u2019 in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21\u201320.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the \u2018elements\u2019 requires further attention is clear from Simplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles.\r\n\r\nMy aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius\u2019 technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius\u2019 own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle\u2019s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle\u2019s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle\u2019s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius\u2019 own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered\u2014the different \u2018sources,\u2019 so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/g1SyUqDyUcBATre","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":912,"section_of":155,"pages":"111-128","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}

Simplikios: Wstęp do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wybór), 2014
By: Łapiński, Krzysztof

Title	Simplikios: Wstęp do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wybór)
Type	Article
Language	Polish
Date	2014
Journal	Przegląd Filozoficzno-Literacki
Volume	40
Issue	3-4
Pages	45-49
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Łapiński, Krzysztof
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The translation includes an introduction to the Simplicius’ commentary on Epictetus’ Enchiridion. The author of the commentary explains to whom is the work of Epictetus addressed, what is the scope o f the Enchiridion, the meaning of the title and the literary genre to which it belongs. The supposed audience is the reader who wants to live in accordance with reason on the level of ethical and political virtues. Such a reader ought to internalize Epictetus’ teaching and appeal to it in the challenging moments of life. The Stoic content has been enriched with the Platonic teaching drawn from Alcibiades I about relationship between the soul and the body. The first Polish translation of Simplicius’ text has been based on the Ilsetraut Hadot’s edition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PcngrYGo5jPGQtC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1138","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1138,"authors_free":[{"id":1712,"entry_id":1138,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":235,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","free_first_name":"Krzysztof","free_last_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski","norm_person":{"id":235,"first_name":"Krzysztof","last_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski","full_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1155501799","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios: Wst\u0119p do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wyb\u00f3r)","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios: Wst\u0119p do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wyb\u00f3r)"},"abstract":"The translation includes an introduction to the Simplicius\u2019 commentary \r\non Epictetus\u2019 Enchiridion. The author of the commentary explains to whom \r\nis the work of Epictetus addressed, what is the scope o f the Enchiridion, \r\nthe meaning of the title and the literary genre to which it belongs. \r\nThe supposed audience is the reader who wants to live in accordance \r\nwith reason on the level of ethical and political virtues. Such a reader \r\nought to internalize Epictetus\u2019 teaching and appeal to it in the challenging \r\nmoments of life. The Stoic content has been enriched with the Platonic \r\nteaching drawn from Alcibiades I about relationship between the soul \r\nand the body. The first Polish translation of Simplicius\u2019 text has been based \r\non the Ilsetraut Hadot\u2019s edition. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"Polish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PcngrYGo5jPGQtC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":235,"full_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1138,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Przegl\u0105d Filozoficzno-Literacki","volume":"40","issue":"3-4","pages":"45-49"}},"sort":[2014]}

Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta, 2014
By: Łapiński, Krzysztof

Title	Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta
Type	Article
Language	Polish
Date	2014
Journal	Przegląd Filozoficzno-Literacki
Volume	40
Issue	3-4
Pages	35-43
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Łapiński, Krzysztof
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius, the Neoplatonic philosopher, and commentator from late antiquity, devoted one of his commentaries to Epictetus’ Enchiridion. In the article, the author posed the question about the place of the text by the Stoic writer within the whole Neoplatonic education system. In addition, he asked to what extent the act of commenting on Epictetus’ work could be conceived by Simplicius as a kind of spiritual exercise. In the second part of the article, the hypothesis by M. Tardieu and I. Hadot is presented, suggesting that the city of Harran could be regarded as the possible place of exile where the group of philosophers settled after the Platonic Academy had been closed. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VGw8HfmmOi2CqbW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1139","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1139,"authors_free":[{"id":1713,"entry_id":1139,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":235,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","free_first_name":"Krzysztof","free_last_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski","norm_person":{"id":235,"first_name":"Krzysztof","last_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski","full_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1155501799","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta"},"abstract":"Simplicius, the Neoplatonic philosopher, and commentator from late antiquity, devoted one of his commentaries to Epictetus\u2019 Enchiridion. In the article, the author posed the question about the place of the text by the Stoic writer within the whole Neoplatonic education system. In addition, he asked to what extent the act of commenting on Epictetus\u2019 work could be conceived by Simplicius as a kind of spiritual exercise. In the second part of the article, the hypothesis by M. Tardieu and I. Hadot is presented, suggesting that the city of Harran could be regarded as the possible place of exile where the group of philosophers settled after the Platonic Academy had been closed. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"Polish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VGw8HfmmOi2CqbW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":235,"full_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1139,"section_of":346,"pages":"35-43","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1139,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Przegl\u0105d Filozoficzno-Literacki","volume":"40","issue":"3-4","pages":"35-43"}},"sort":[2014]}

Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion, 2014
By: Lawrence, Marilynn, Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.), Tarrant, Harold (Ed.)

Title	Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	The Neoplatonic Socrates
Pages	127-142
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lawrence, Marilynn
Editor(s)	Layne, Danielle A. , Tarrant, Harold
Translator(s)

This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hnBeShzJI9WChDr

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1157,"authors_free":[{"id":1730,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":86,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn","free_first_name":"Marilynn","free_last_name":"Lawrence","norm_person":{"id":86,"first_name":"Marilynn ","last_name":"Lawrence","full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1152956507","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2074,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2075,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion","main_title":{"title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"},"abstract":"This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hnBeShzJI9WChDr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":86,"full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1157,"section_of":344,"pages":"127-142","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":344,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant_Layne_2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates \"really\" was\u2014the true history of his activities and beliefs\u2014has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods.\r\n\r\nIn The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.\r\n\r\nContributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, Fran\u00e7ois Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.\r\n[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19, 2014
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano, Cardullo, R. Loredana (Ed.), Iozzia, Daniele (Ed.)

Title	Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2014
Published in	ΚΑΛΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΕΤΗ. Bellezza e virtù. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti
Pages	537-549
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)	Cardullo, R. Loredana , Iozzia, Daniele
Translator(s)

L'obiettivo che mi propongo di raggiungere in questa mia indagine è duplice: da un lato, cercherò di comprendere il posizionamento di Simplicio in merito a una delicata questione ermeneutica, sollevata da due linee interpretative differenti. L'esegesi del passo aristotelico in questione è considerata da alcuni come filosoficamente indegna della natura oppure no; dall’altro lato, mi adopererò per mettere in luce un aspetto del metodo con cui Simplicio affronta l'interpretazione di Aristotele, ponendo particolare attenzione alla terminologia e al fine della quale egli si confronta con altri esegeti aristotelici, in particolare con Alessandro di Afrodisia e con Porfirio. Preciso subito che non ricercherò di risolvere la questione concernente il senso aristotelico, al quale intendo dedicare uno studio a parte, ma mi concentrerò piuttosto sull’interpretazione di Simplicio, il quale ricorre frequentemente a questione ermeneutiche al fine di ricostruire il senso genuino del testo di Aristotele. Mi limito dunque a presentare molto brevemente il problema inerente al testo della Fisica. La critica che Aristotele muove agli Eleati in Fisica I, 2 è nota per la sua problematicità, che riguarda non soltanto le argomentazioni che vengono addotte contro Parmenide e Melisso, ma anche lo statuto complessivo della critica stessa (Phys. I, 2, 184b25-185a14). Aristoteles affermato è che indagare se l’essere è uno e immobile non è indegno della natura, e che, comunque, non lo è se presupposto dalla fisica aristotelica, che studia enti molteplici e numerosi soggetti al divenire. In questo contesto, la formulazione testuale assume un'importanza fondamentale per la corretta comprensione del pensiero aristotelico. In particolare, la frase trasmessa nelle edizioni critiche più recenti, cioè quelle di Ross e di Carteron, con la punteggiatura che ho sopra riportato, significherebbe—ed è così interpretata dalla quasi totalità dei traduttori moderni della Fisica aristotelica—che gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che riguardano la natura e, dunque, la sua scienza. Tuttavia, ci sono interpreti che intendono questa stessa frase in modo diverso, spostando la virgola che nelle edizioni di Ross e di Carteron si legge dopo il secondo ou, prima di questa negazione. Così, il testo risulterebbe nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che non riguardano la natura. Lungi dall’essere un problema ozioso, la diversa lettura della punteggiatura solleva un dubbio teorico di grande importanza. Ponendo la virgola prima o dopo la negazione ou, infatti, il senso del passo aristotelico risulta ribaltato: secondo la prima lettura, Parmenide e Melisso non sarebbero, secondo Aristotele, dei fisici; mentre secondo la seconda lettura, essi, al contrario, sarebbero filosofi che hanno indagato a pieno titolo sulla natura. Quest'ultimo modo di intendere il passo aristotelico, contrario a quello comunemente adottato, è stato assunto in passato da diversi interpreti. Tra questi, sia Averroè sia Tommaso d'Aquino hanno inteso che gli Eleati abbiano indagato sulla natura; tra i moderni, Augustin Mansion e Pierre Pellegrin. Mansion, per giustificare la sua interpretazione, si richiama prevalentemente alle traduzioni arabe, da cui derivano le versioni latine di Gerardo da Cremona e di Michele Scoto. Pellegrin, invece, si sofferma sull'affermazione di Aristotele secondo la quale il filosofo ritiene opportuno risolvere non tutte le aporie, ma solo quelle di cui si può mostrare la falsità a partire dai principi (Phys. I, 2, 185a14-16). Egli analizza l’esempio della quadratura del cerchio, la cui soluzione da parte di Antifonte non è considerata da Aristotele come una questione che debba essere affrontata dal geometra, al contrario della procedura per mezzo delle sezioni, la cui risoluzione è precisamente di competenza del geometra. Di qui, Pellegrin stabilisce un’analogia tra Parmenide e Melisso da un lato—i quali assumono che l’essere è uno e immobile—e Antifonte dall’altro lato—il quale cercò di risolvere il problema della quadratura del cerchio mediante l’iscrizione nel cerchio di poligoni regolari—procedura che per Aristotele non è accettabile dal punto di vista del geometra. Sia Mansion che Pellegrin riconoscono che la lettura secondo la quale Parmenide e Melisso avrebbero sì indagato sulla natura, ma avrebbero sollevato aporie che non riguardano la natura, si trova già in Porfirio e in Alessandro, come si desume dal testo di Simplicio. Nessuno dei due studiosi, tuttavia, ha presentato in dettaglio la discussione di Simplicio, che presenta diversi tratti interessanti e che vale la pena interpretare correttamente. Non solo perché Alessandro, tra le due interpretazioni possibili, sceglie quella secondo cui, per Aristotele, gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura, ma anche perché alla fine del suo commento Simplicio stesso sembra sfumare la radicalità della sua critica ad Alessandro e, quindi, anche della sua propensione a interpretare nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura. [introduction p. 537-539]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U8p9nMTxWVQUE6R

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1162","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1162,"authors_free":[{"id":1740,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2076,"entry_id":1162,"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":2077,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":247,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Iozzia, Daniele","free_first_name":"Daniele ","free_last_name":"Iozzia","norm_person":{"id":247,"first_name":"Daniele ","last_name":"Iozzia","full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036757870","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19","main_title":{"title":"Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19"},"abstract":"L'obiettivo che mi propongo di raggiungere in questa mia indagine \u00e8 duplice: da un lato, cercher\u00f2 di comprendere il posizionamento di Simplicio in merito a una delicata questione ermeneutica, sollevata da due linee interpretative differenti. L'esegesi del passo aristotelico in questione \u00e8 considerata da alcuni come filosoficamente indegna della natura oppure no; dall\u2019altro lato, mi adoperer\u00f2 per mettere in luce un aspetto del metodo con cui Simplicio affronta l'interpretazione di Aristotele, ponendo particolare attenzione alla terminologia e al fine della quale egli si confronta con altri esegeti aristotelici, in particolare con Alessandro di Afrodisia e con Porfirio.\r\nPreciso subito che non ricercher\u00f2 di risolvere la questione concernente il senso aristotelico, al quale intendo dedicare uno studio a parte, ma mi concentrer\u00f2 piuttosto sull\u2019interpretazione di Simplicio, il quale ricorre frequentemente a questione ermeneutiche al fine di ricostruire il senso genuino del testo di Aristotele. Mi limito dunque a presentare molto brevemente il problema inerente al testo della Fisica.\r\nLa critica che Aristotele muove agli Eleati in Fisica I, 2 \u00e8 nota per la sua problematicit\u00e0, che riguarda non soltanto le argomentazioni che vengono addotte contro Parmenide e Melisso, ma anche lo statuto complessivo della critica stessa (Phys. I, 2, 184b25-185a14). Aristoteles affermato \u00e8 che indagare se l\u2019essere \u00e8 uno e immobile non \u00e8 indegno della natura, e che, comunque, non lo \u00e8 se presupposto dalla fisica aristotelica, che studia enti molteplici e numerosi soggetti al divenire. In questo contesto, la formulazione testuale assume un'importanza fondamentale per la corretta comprensione del pensiero aristotelico.\r\nIn particolare, la frase trasmessa nelle edizioni critiche pi\u00f9 recenti, cio\u00e8 quelle di Ross e di Carteron, con la punteggiatura che ho sopra riportato, significherebbe\u2014ed \u00e8 cos\u00ec interpretata dalla quasi totalit\u00e0 dei traduttori moderni della Fisica aristotelica\u2014che gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che riguardano la natura e, dunque, la sua scienza. Tuttavia, ci sono interpreti che intendono questa stessa frase in modo diverso, spostando la virgola che nelle edizioni di Ross e di Carteron si legge dopo il secondo ou, prima di questa negazione. Cos\u00ec, il testo risulterebbe nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che non riguardano la natura.\r\nLungi dall\u2019essere un problema ozioso, la diversa lettura della punteggiatura solleva un dubbio teorico di grande importanza. Ponendo la virgola prima o dopo la negazione ou, infatti, il senso del passo aristotelico risulta ribaltato: secondo la prima lettura, Parmenide e Melisso non sarebbero, secondo Aristotele, dei fisici; mentre secondo la seconda lettura, essi, al contrario, sarebbero filosofi che hanno indagato a pieno titolo sulla natura.\r\nQuest'ultimo modo di intendere il passo aristotelico, contrario a quello comunemente adottato, \u00e8 stato assunto in passato da diversi interpreti. Tra questi, sia Averro\u00e8 sia Tommaso d'Aquino hanno inteso che gli Eleati abbiano indagato sulla natura; tra i moderni, Augustin Mansion e Pierre Pellegrin. Mansion, per giustificare la sua interpretazione, si richiama prevalentemente alle traduzioni arabe, da cui derivano le versioni latine di Gerardo da Cremona e di Michele Scoto. Pellegrin, invece, si sofferma sull'affermazione di Aristotele secondo la quale il filosofo ritiene opportuno risolvere non tutte le aporie, ma solo quelle di cui si pu\u00f2 mostrare la falsit\u00e0 a partire dai principi (Phys. I, 2, 185a14-16). Egli analizza l\u2019esempio della quadratura del cerchio, la cui soluzione da parte di Antifonte non \u00e8 considerata da Aristotele come una questione che debba essere affrontata dal geometra, al contrario della procedura per mezzo delle sezioni, la cui risoluzione \u00e8 precisamente di competenza del geometra.\r\nDi qui, Pellegrin stabilisce un\u2019analogia tra Parmenide e Melisso da un lato\u2014i quali assumono che l\u2019essere \u00e8 uno e immobile\u2014e Antifonte dall\u2019altro lato\u2014il quale cerc\u00f2 di risolvere il problema della quadratura del cerchio mediante l\u2019iscrizione nel cerchio di poligoni regolari\u2014procedura che per Aristotele non \u00e8 accettabile dal punto di vista del geometra.\r\nSia Mansion che Pellegrin riconoscono che la lettura secondo la quale Parmenide e Melisso avrebbero s\u00ec indagato sulla natura, ma avrebbero sollevato aporie che non riguardano la natura, si trova gi\u00e0 in Porfirio e in Alessandro, come si desume dal testo di Simplicio. Nessuno dei due studiosi, tuttavia, ha presentato in dettaglio la discussione di Simplicio, che presenta diversi tratti interessanti e che vale la pena interpretare correttamente. Non solo perch\u00e9 Alessandro, tra le due interpretazioni possibili, sceglie quella secondo cui, per Aristotele, gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura, ma anche perch\u00e9 alla fine del suo commento Simplicio stesso sembra sfumare la radicalit\u00e0 della sua critica ad Alessandro e, quindi, anche della sua propensione a interpretare nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura.\r\n[introduction p. 537-539]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U8p9nMTxWVQUE6R","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":247,"full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1162,"section_of":323,"pages":"537-549","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":323,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"\u039a\u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u0397. Bellezza e virt\u00f9. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Cardullo2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iYDFyV0tpKo9lmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":323,"pubplace":"Acireale - Rom","publisher":"Bonanno","series":"Analecta humanitatis. Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione dell'Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Catania diretta da Santo Di Nuovo","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno", 2014
By: Gardella, Mariana

Title	El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno"
Type	Article
Language	Spanish
Date	2014
Journal	Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad del Norte
Volume	23
Pages	157-181
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gardella, Mariana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno’s objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno’s philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Refutations and mainly Metaphysics Hi. 4. 1001b7-I3 (DK 29 A 21). I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno’s philosophy (In Ph. 99.7-18, DK 29 A 21; 138. 3-6, DK 29 A 22). [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YSCgmZjhBUMltzI

{"_index":"sire","_id":"621","_score":null,"_source":{"id":621,"authors_free":[{"id":877,"entry_id":621,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":124,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gardella, Mariana","free_first_name":"Mariana","free_last_name":"Gardella","norm_person":{"id":124,"first_name":"Mariana","last_name":"Gardella","full_name":"Gardella, Mariana","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"El testimonio de Arist\u00f3teles sobre Zen\u00f2n de Elea como un detractor de \"lo uno\"","main_title":{"title":"El testimonio de Arist\u00f3teles sobre Zen\u00f2n de Elea como un detractor de \"lo uno\""},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno\u2019s objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno\u2019s philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Re\u00adfutations and mainly Metaphysics Hi. 4. 1001b7-I3 (DK 29 A 21). I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno\u2019s philosophy (In Ph. 99.7-18, DK 29 A 21; 138. 3-6, DK 29 A 22). [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YSCgmZjhBUMltzI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":124,"full_name":"Gardella, Mariana","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":621,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Eidos: Revista de Filosof\u00eda de la Universidad del Norte","volume":"23","issue":"","pages":"157-181"}},"sort":[2014]}

Iamblichus on Soul, 2014
By: Finamore, John F., Remes, Pauliina (Ed.), Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (Ed.)

Title	Iamblichus on Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism
Pages	280-292
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Finamore, John F.
Editor(s)	Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla
Translator(s)

Central to lamblichus’ philosophy is his doctrine o f the soul. The hum an soul strad dles two worlds (the realms o f the Intelligible and o f Nature) and can operate in both. H um an souls descend to live a life on earth, but their real hom e is in the Intelligible W orld o f the Forms. Through the help o f the interm ediary divinities, hum an souls re ascend to the Intelligible and regain their proper abode. The hum an soul is the central character in this dram a, and its purification through philosophy and ritual is central to its eventual ascent.As in other areas, lamblichus’ philosophy o f the soul had a large im pact on later Neoplatonists. We are lucky enough to have large sections o f his de Anima, preserved by John Stobaeus. His de Mysteriis and fragments from his Platonic com m entaries also shed light on Iamblichean psychology, but the m ost im portant fragments are preserved by the author o f the com m entary to A ristotle’s de Anima, who may or may not be Simplicius,2 and by Priscianus o f Lydia. We will consider all o f these sources as we examine lamblichus’ unique doctrine of the soul. [p. 280]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IYcaU85hLlbEvz5

{"_index":"sire","_id":"807","_score":null,"_source":{"id":807,"authors_free":[{"id":1194,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2103,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":118,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Remes, Pauliina","free_first_name":"Pauliina","free_last_name":"Remes","norm_person":{"id":118,"first_name":"Pauliina","last_name":"Remes","full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103255665","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2104,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":119,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","free_first_name":"Svetla","free_last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","norm_person":{"id":119,"first_name":"Svetla","last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137698070","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus on Soul","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus on Soul"},"abstract":"Central to lamblichus\u2019 philosophy is his doctrine o f the soul. The hum an soul strad\u00ad\r\ndles two worlds (the realms o f the Intelligible and o f Nature) and can operate in both. \r\nH um an souls descend to live a life on earth, but their real hom e is in the Intelligible \r\nW orld o f the Forms. Through the help o f the interm ediary divinities, hum an souls re\u00ad\r\nascend to the Intelligible and regain their proper abode. The hum an soul is the central \r\ncharacter in this dram a, and its purification through philosophy and ritual is central to \r\nits eventual ascent.As in other areas, lamblichus\u2019 philosophy o f the soul had a large im pact on later \r\nNeoplatonists. We are lucky enough to have large sections o f his de Anima, preserved by \r\nJohn Stobaeus. His de Mysteriis and fragments from his Platonic com m entaries also shed \r\nlight on Iamblichean psychology, but the m ost im portant fragments are preserved by the \r\nauthor o f the com m entary to A ristotle\u2019s de Anima, who may or may not be Simplicius,2 \r\nand by Priscianus o f Lydia. We will consider all o f these sources as we examine lamblichus\u2019 \r\nunique doctrine of the soul. [p. 280]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IYcaU85hLlbEvz5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":118,"full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":119,"full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":807,"section_of":345,"pages":"280-292","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":345,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Remes\/Slaveva-Griffin2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:\r\n\r\n (Re)sources, instruction and interaction\r\n Methods and Styles of Exegesis\r\n Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives\r\n Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self\r\n Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology\r\n Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics\r\n The legacy of Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nThe Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":345,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

La postérité arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm, 2014
By: Vallat, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)

Title	La postérité arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2014
Published in	Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique
Pages	240-264
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Vallat, Philippe
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pjkBxNt8HyD0f6J

{"_index":"sire","_id":"828","_score":null,"_source":{"id":828,"authors_free":[{"id":1229,"entry_id":828,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":498,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vallat, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Vallat","norm_person":{"id":498,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Vallat","full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1230,"entry_id":828,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm","main_title":{"title":"La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pjkBxNt8HyD0f6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":498,"full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":828,"section_of":74,"pages":"240-264","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":74,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":74,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Le dédicataire d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm, 2014
By: Vallat, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)

Title	Le dédicataire d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2014
Published in	Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique
Pages	102-129
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Vallat, Philippe
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FUC3RJY9ty0CDoV

{"_index":"sire","_id":"829","_score":null,"_source":{"id":829,"authors_free":[{"id":1231,"entry_id":829,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":498,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vallat, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Vallat","norm_person":{"id":498,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Vallat","full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1232,"entry_id":829,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm","main_title":{"title":"Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FUC3RJY9ty0CDoV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":498,"full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":829,"section_of":74,"pages":"102-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":74,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":74,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators, 2014
By: Lautner, Peter, Remes, Pauliina (Ed.), Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (Ed.)

Title	Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism
Pages	323-338
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lautner, Peter
Editor(s)	Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla
Translator(s)

Most Neoplatonists were convinced that the perceptual activity of the senses is a conscious activity, including even the reception of primary sense qualities such as colors and sounds. This means that we cannot perceive anything unless we are aware of the specific impact exerted by the sense object upon the sense organ. The commentators can also rely on the doctrine found in Aristotle's Physics 7.2, according to which what is distinctive of perceptual alterations is that the subject is aware of them. The problem with that discussion was that it did not explain why some alterations rather than others involve awareness. Why are we supposed to think that sense perception implies awareness whereas other forms of qualitative change do not? For this reason, the discussion seemed to leave mysterious the possession by the sense organs of the capacity to perceive. Moreover, an important part of the awareness involved in sense perception is that we are aware not only of the specific impact but also of the perceptual activity of our sensory power. The root of the problem is exposed in Aristotle’s De Anima. In 3.2, Aristotle insists that we do perceive that we perceive. He seems to take it for granted that our perceptual system is capable of grasping its own operations. At the beginning of De Anima 3.2, he presents the following aporia: "Since we perceive that we see and hear, it must either be by sight that one perceives that one sees or by another [sense]. But in that case, there will be the same [sense] for sight and the color which is the subject for sight—so that either there will be two senses for the same thing or {the sense} itself will be the one for itself." (425b 12-16, trans. Hamlyn) The distinction between perception and perception of perception—perceptual consciousness—is here taken for granted, and the fact that a subject perceives that he perceives is something that calls for explanation. In principle, the problem posed by Physics 7.2 is now resolved. On the account of the De Anima, in order for the subject to be aware of it, sense perception must be understood as a change that takes place in the perceiving subject. According to a general principle of change, formulated in Physics 3.3 (202a21-b5), the change produced by some cause is always in the thing that is changed. Consequently, as a kind of qualitative change, sense perception takes place in the perceiving subject. Moreover, sense perception implies perceptual awareness because sense perception is a reception of sensible forms coming from without. Perceptual awareness comes about when the sense apprehends the sensible forms in itself and, on account of this, fulfills its function as sense. We perceive the change within ourselves. The two processes are one, differing only in account. For it is by receiving the form from the things perceived, which are outside, that we apprehend them, but it is by the sense having the form of the things perceived in itself that perceptual awareness comes about. To take the example of seeing, we see something in virtue of apprehending the perceptible’s form. By apprehending the form, the sense of sight sees, and at the same time, it comes to see itself seeing. On this account, sense perception is intimately linked to a certain kind of awareness. In sense perception, we simultaneously apprehend both the thing perceived and the activity of the sense in relation to the thing perceived. Perceptual awareness is tied to the fact that in sense perception, we must be aware of the reception of external influence. Hence, the reflexive nature of sense perception is somehow included in the activity of grasping the primary objects of sense perception. How shall we harmonize the two accounts? After all, it seems that in the De Anima, Alexander emphasizes the role of the common sense power, whereas in Quaestiones 3.7, he derives perceptual awareness from the general nature of sense perception. My suggestion is that the two accounts are complementary. The Quaestiones offer a general account of how perceptual awareness is possible. The reception of sensible forms requires awareness. Following Aristotle, Alexander assumes that this kind of awareness belongs to the perceptual faculty. It is not the rational faculty that such a task has been assigned to. In the De Anima, Alexander specifies the thesis by pointing out that perceptual awareness comes about by virtue of the activity of the center of our perceptual system. It may remain unclear as to what arguments led him to dismiss the possibility that the particular senses might be able to grasp the activity of their own. There seem to be two points that could not have been accepted, for different reasons, and they also marked the limits within which Alexander's argument must have moved. On the one hand, he accepted the Aristotelian thesis that perceptual awareness is the task of the perceptual system. On the other hand, he might have had doubts about the ability of the particular senses to grasp their own activities. Even if the act of seeing is somehow colored (De Anima 92.27-31), there must be a difference between the perceiver and the perceived. The difference is within the perceptual system and lies between the particular sense and the common sense power. [introduction p. 325-326]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wW0wlLHdi7RUUn2

{"_index":"sire","_id":"880","_score":null,"_source":{"id":880,"authors_free":[{"id":1291,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1292,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":118,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Remes, Pauliina","free_first_name":"Pauliina","free_last_name":"Remes","norm_person":{"id":118,"first_name":"Pauliina","last_name":"Remes","full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103255665","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1293,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":119,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","free_first_name":"Svetla","free_last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","norm_person":{"id":119,"first_name":"Svetla","last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137698070","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators","main_title":{"title":"Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators"},"abstract":"Most Neoplatonists were convinced that the perceptual activity of the senses is a conscious activity, including even the reception of primary sense qualities such as colors and sounds. This means that we cannot perceive anything unless we are aware of the specific impact exerted by the sense object upon the sense organ. The commentators can also rely on the doctrine found in Aristotle's Physics 7.2, according to which what is distinctive of perceptual alterations is that the subject is aware of them. The problem with that discussion was that it did not explain why some alterations rather than others involve awareness. Why are we supposed to think that sense perception implies awareness whereas other forms of qualitative change do not? For this reason, the discussion seemed to leave mysterious the possession by the sense organs of the capacity to perceive.\r\n\r\nMoreover, an important part of the awareness involved in sense perception is that we are aware not only of the specific impact but also of the perceptual activity of our sensory power. The root of the problem is exposed in Aristotle\u2019s De Anima. In 3.2, Aristotle insists that we do perceive that we perceive. He seems to take it for granted that our perceptual system is capable of grasping its own operations. At the beginning of De Anima 3.2, he presents the following aporia:\r\n\r\n\"Since we perceive that we see and hear, it must either be by sight that one perceives that one sees or by another [sense]. But in that case, there will be the same [sense] for sight and the color which is the subject for sight\u2014so that either there will be two senses for the same thing or {the sense} itself will be the one for itself.\" (425b 12-16, trans. Hamlyn)\r\n\r\nThe distinction between perception and perception of perception\u2014perceptual consciousness\u2014is here taken for granted, and the fact that a subject perceives that he perceives is something that calls for explanation. In principle, the problem posed by Physics 7.2 is now resolved. On the account of the De Anima, in order for the subject to be aware of it, sense perception must be understood as a change that takes place in the perceiving subject. According to a general principle of change, formulated in Physics 3.3 (202a21-b5), the change produced by some cause is always in the thing that is changed.\r\n\r\nConsequently, as a kind of qualitative change, sense perception takes place in the perceiving subject. Moreover, sense perception implies perceptual awareness because sense perception is a reception of sensible forms coming from without. Perceptual awareness comes about when the sense apprehends the sensible forms in itself and, on account of this, fulfills its function as sense. We perceive the change within ourselves. The two processes are one, differing only in account. For it is by receiving the form from the things perceived, which are outside, that we apprehend them, but it is by the sense having the form of the things perceived in itself that perceptual awareness comes about. To take the example of seeing, we see something in virtue of apprehending the perceptible\u2019s form. By apprehending the form, the sense of sight sees, and at the same time, it comes to see itself seeing.\r\n\r\nOn this account, sense perception is intimately linked to a certain kind of awareness. In sense perception, we simultaneously apprehend both the thing perceived and the activity of the sense in relation to the thing perceived. Perceptual awareness is tied to the fact that in sense perception, we must be aware of the reception of external influence. Hence, the reflexive nature of sense perception is somehow included in the activity of grasping the primary objects of sense perception.\r\n\r\nHow shall we harmonize the two accounts? After all, it seems that in the De Anima, Alexander emphasizes the role of the common sense power, whereas in Quaestiones 3.7, he derives perceptual awareness from the general nature of sense perception. My suggestion is that the two accounts are complementary. The Quaestiones offer a general account of how perceptual awareness is possible. The reception of sensible forms requires awareness. Following Aristotle, Alexander assumes that this kind of awareness belongs to the perceptual faculty. It is not the rational faculty that such a task has been assigned to.\r\n\r\nIn the De Anima, Alexander specifies the thesis by pointing out that perceptual awareness comes about by virtue of the activity of the center of our perceptual system. It may remain unclear as to what arguments led him to dismiss the possibility that the particular senses might be able to grasp the activity of their own. There seem to be two points that could not have been accepted, for different reasons, and they also marked the limits within which Alexander's argument must have moved.\r\n\r\nOn the one hand, he accepted the Aristotelian thesis that perceptual awareness is the task of the perceptual system. On the other hand, he might have had doubts about the ability of the particular senses to grasp their own activities. Even if the act of seeing is somehow colored (De Anima 92.27-31), there must be a difference between the perceiver and the perceived. The difference is within the perceptual system and lies between the particular sense and the common sense power. [introduction p. 325-326]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wW0wlLHdi7RUUn2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":118,"full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":119,"full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":880,"section_of":345,"pages":"323-338","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":345,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Remes\/Slaveva-Griffin2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:\r\n\r\n (Re)sources, instruction and interaction\r\n Methods and Styles of Exegesis\r\n Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives\r\n Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self\r\n Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology\r\n Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics\r\n The legacy of Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nThe Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":345,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2014
By: Sellars, J. T.

Title	Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sellars, J. T.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This book is the first monograph in English (or any other language) devoted to the Late Platonic commentator Simplicius. Its focus is on Simplicius' methodology as a commentator. It deals at length with Simplicius' engagements with other ancient philosophers, from the earliest Presocratics, through the Peripatetic tradition (Theophrastus, Alexander), to contemporaries such as John Philoponus. Who was Simplicius? He was a Neoplatonist working in the first decades of the sixth century AD under whose name five commentaries have come down to us from antiquity. These commentaries are on Aristotle's Physics, Categories, De Caelo, and De Anima, and the Enchiridion of Epictetus, although his authorship of the commentary on the De Anima has been a subject of scholarly debate. In these often lengthy commentaries, Simplicius quotes from a wide range of philosophical texts where he thinks it relevant to his discussion of Aristotle's text and, in the process, preserves fragments from a number of otherwise lost works. Simplicius' chief claim to fame, then, is that he has become a vital source for our knowledge of Presocratic philosophy. Without Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, our knowledge of early Greek philosophy would be significantly reduced. This is the standard line. We should all be thankful to Simplicius for his habit of quoting texts in full rather than merely naming them in passing. We are thankful. But is there any more to him? Is Simplicius himself an interesting or significant philosopher? Is there anything more to him beyond his role as a doxographical source? Baltussen, in devoting a monograph to him, thinks there is, but he is conscious many will not share that view. Consequently, his book opens with an apologetic and slightly defensive introduction in which he tries to make the case for reading Simplicius as more than merely a quarry from which to extract quotations. Part of the task includes a defense of Late Platonism (Baltussen deliberately avoids the usual label "Neoplatonism"), to which Simplicius adhered. We are encouraged to put our reservations to one side and reassess Simplicius afresh. The opening chapter introduces Simplicius' method and practice as a commentator. His commentaries differ from many other examples from late antiquity to the extent that they don't seem to be straightforward records of oral lectures taken "from the voice of" (apo phônês) the author. Instead, they are extended written works, conceived as textbooks for pagan teachers explicitly designed to preserve as much as possible of the pagan philosophical tradition—hence the extensive quotations. In these often lengthy texts, Simplicius explicitly rejects originality, but Baltussen argues that we ought not to take this at face value and that these expressions of modesty are, in part, made out of respect for his teachers. The second chapter deals with Simplicius' role as a source for the Presocratics. Baltussen welcomes Catherine Osborne's approach of reading fragments of the Presocratics within their doxographical context, as this adds to Simplicius' potential significance. What is important, of course, is to gain a sense of the motive and agenda of the doxographer. According to Baltussen, Simplicius' aim is to locate all of the Presocratics within a Late Platonic framework that emphasizes unity within the pagan philosophical tradition conceived as "a single venerable and ancient message." This may be so up to a point, but to what extent would Simplicius welcome Democritus (or Epicurus) into this unified tradition? It would have been interesting to hear more about those thinkers who don't neatly fit within this syncretized history of philosophy, precisely because the points of disagreement might help to bring Simplicius' own position into sharper focus. Baltussen raises the question of whether Simplicius had access to the works of Presocratics directly or merely to collections of excerpts but doesn't draw any firm conclusions either way. The third chapter turns to Simplicius' use of early Peripatetics such as Theophrastus and Eudemus. Baltussen argues that Simplicius took the early Peripatetics—and especially Theophrastus—very seriously in his exegeses of Aristotle because Theophrastus would have known Aristotle personally, giving his glosses an added authority. This is a departure from the attitudes of previous Platonic commentators on Aristotle. Although Simplicius shares the wider Late Platonic desire to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, there is also a strong desire to get Aristotle right, and no one is more likely to help in that task than Theophrastus. Baltussen suggests that we conceive Theophrastus himself as part of the Platonic commentary tradition, given his own comments on the Timaeus, but philosophical engagement with a previous author is not quite the same thing as commentary. The Peripatetic theme continues in the fourth chapter, which is devoted to Alexander of Aphrodisias. Baltussen offers a detailed and slightly labored analysis of the motivations behind Simplicius' regular and extensive quotation from Alexander, but the question seems relatively straightforward. Why did Simplicius make use of Alexander's commentaries on Aristotle in his own commentaries on Aristotle? Because Alexander has lots of interesting things to say about Aristotle. The focus here again is on form rather than content, methodology rather than philosophy. The fifth chapter examines the Platonic commentary tradition before Simplicius and discusses Simplicius' use of Plotinus and the Post-Plotinian tradition of harmonizing commentaries from Porphyry onwards. Simplicius' immediate teacher Ammonius is discussed briefly but deserves more attention. For instance, we were told in the opening chapter that Simplicius' rejection of originality was mere self-deprecation, but presumably that claim could be tested to some degree via a comparison between his own views and those of his teacher. The same goes for his later mentor Damascius. The final chapter turns to the theme of polemic and focuses its attention on Simplicius' exchanges with his arch-rival John Philoponus, another Platonic commentator, but also a Christian. Baltussen prefaces his discussion with an account of the tensions and hostilities between Christians and pagans in late antiquity. Once again, Simplicius is presented as the defender of an embattled pagan philosophical tradition, taking Philoponus to task for his attacks against Proclus and Aristotle in De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Proclum. Baltussen highlights the rhetorical aspects of Simplicius' polemics rather than the content of the dispute, so once more methodology is the principal focus. The intensity of Simplicius' personal references to Philoponus ("raving swine") is contrasted with his sober and respectful references to Alexander. An epilogue sums up the proceedings. One of the central themes to emerge from the book as a whole is the claim that, in order to understand what Simplicius is doing in his commentaries, we must take into account his commitment to pagan religion as well as philosophy. We should see the commentaries not merely as "scholarly schoolbooks" but rather as steps on a long road toward a more existential transformation. This religious dimension of Late Platonism should not be overlooked, Baltussen argues, if we want to understand properly what Simplicius is trying to achieve. The commentaries are his attempt to preserve the entire pagan philosophical and religious tradition within an increasingly hostile Christian world. On this final point, as well as a number of others, Baltussen sketches a broad context within which to think about what Simplicius is doing but there is much less in the way of detailed analysis of what he actually did do, what he argued for, or what philosophical positions he himself held. This is in part simply a reflection of the sheer length of the commentaries themselves and no one could offer a detailed analysis of their contents within the covers of a single volume. I said at the outset that five commentaries have come down to us under the name of Simplicius. Baltussen discusses only three of them. He puts to one side the De Anima commentary and he may well be right to do so, but it would have been nice to have seen a fuller discussion of the text and the question of its authorship.[2] He also more or less ignores the commentary on the Enchiridion of Epictetus. Although it does get the occasional mention (e.g. p. 43) Baltussen proceeds as if it doesn't exist, at one point writing 'all three extant commentaries' (p. 34). In his interesting attempt to reconstruct 'the library of Simplicius' (pp. 211-15), neither Epictetus nor Arrian get a mention. This is a great shame for a number of reasons. The in Ench. is unique as the only surviving commentary on a Stoic text to come down to us. Moreover, it is a commentary by a Late Platonist, and as a rule Late Platonists only wrote commentaries on Plato and Aristotle.[3] The way in which Late Platonists brought Aristotle into their curriculum is a well-worn subject, but the desire to bring in a Stoic text is quite unusual. It complicates Simplicius' activity as a commentator in a number of interesting and significant ways. Presumably Baltussen would argue that this is part of Simplicius' desire to unite and then preserve the entire pagan philosophical tradition in an increasingly hostile Christian world, but if that is the case then the in Ench. would form a potentially significant piece of evidence for Baltussen's thesis, one that has sadly been left out of the account. There is much in Baltussen's book that is of interest, but I'm not sure how far it goes in fleshing out a more rounded portrait of Simplicius. The focus of the volume throughout is squarely on Simplicius' use of other authors—i.e., his quotations—rather than Simplicius as an author or a philosopher in his own right. Baltussen consciously avoids discussing Simplicius qua philosopher on the basis that this has been done by others elsewhere. This is true to an extent, but what would be nice is a more synthetic volume that brings these discussions together in order to give us a complete picture. This book doesn't do that, although, to be fair, it doesn't ever claim to be trying to. What remains a desideratum, then, is a monograph that might combine Baltussen's methodological researches with an account of what is philosophically valuable in Simplicius. Most of my critical comments above have been asking for more discussion on various points, and no author can do everything in just one volume. I certainly hope that this book will encourage further work on Simplicius by both Baltussen and others that will help us to gain a fuller portrait of this still relatively neglected philosopher. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MiDP9FxKLHavo2S

{"_index":"sire","_id":"904","_score":null,"_source":{"id":904,"authors_free":[{"id":1335,"entry_id":904,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This book is the first monograph in English (or any other language) devoted to the Late Platonic commentator Simplicius. Its focus is on Simplicius' methodology as a commentator. It deals at length with Simplicius' engagements with other ancient philosophers, from the earliest Presocratics, through the Peripatetic tradition (Theophrastus, Alexander), to contemporaries such as John Philoponus.\r\n\r\nWho was Simplicius? He was a Neoplatonist working in the first decades of the sixth century AD under whose name five commentaries have come down to us from antiquity. These commentaries are on Aristotle's Physics, Categories, De Caelo, and De Anima, and the Enchiridion of Epictetus, although his authorship of the commentary on the De Anima has been a subject of scholarly debate. In these often lengthy commentaries, Simplicius quotes from a wide range of philosophical texts where he thinks it relevant to his discussion of Aristotle's text and, in the process, preserves fragments from a number of otherwise lost works.\r\n\r\nSimplicius' chief claim to fame, then, is that he has become a vital source for our knowledge of Presocratic philosophy. Without Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, our knowledge of early Greek philosophy would be significantly reduced.\r\n\r\nThis is the standard line. We should all be thankful to Simplicius for his habit of quoting texts in full rather than merely naming them in passing. We are thankful. But is there any more to him? Is Simplicius himself an interesting or significant philosopher? Is there anything more to him beyond his role as a doxographical source? Baltussen, in devoting a monograph to him, thinks there is, but he is conscious many will not share that view. Consequently, his book opens with an apologetic and slightly defensive introduction in which he tries to make the case for reading Simplicius as more than merely a quarry from which to extract quotations. Part of the task includes a defense of Late Platonism (Baltussen deliberately avoids the usual label \"Neoplatonism\"), to which Simplicius adhered. We are encouraged to put our reservations to one side and reassess Simplicius afresh.\r\n\r\nThe opening chapter introduces Simplicius' method and practice as a commentator. His commentaries differ from many other examples from late antiquity to the extent that they don't seem to be straightforward records of oral lectures taken \"from the voice of\" (apo ph\u00f4n\u00eas) the author. Instead, they are extended written works, conceived as textbooks for pagan teachers explicitly designed to preserve as much as possible of the pagan philosophical tradition\u2014hence the extensive quotations. In these often lengthy texts, Simplicius explicitly rejects originality, but Baltussen argues that we ought not to take this at face value and that these expressions of modesty are, in part, made out of respect for his teachers.\r\n\r\nThe second chapter deals with Simplicius' role as a source for the Presocratics. Baltussen welcomes Catherine Osborne's approach of reading fragments of the Presocratics within their doxographical context, as this adds to Simplicius' potential significance. What is important, of course, is to gain a sense of the motive and agenda of the doxographer. According to Baltussen, Simplicius' aim is to locate all of the Presocratics within a Late Platonic framework that emphasizes unity within the pagan philosophical tradition conceived as \"a single venerable and ancient message.\" This may be so up to a point, but to what extent would Simplicius welcome Democritus (or Epicurus) into this unified tradition? It would have been interesting to hear more about those thinkers who don't neatly fit within this syncretized history of philosophy, precisely because the points of disagreement might help to bring Simplicius' own position into sharper focus. Baltussen raises the question of whether Simplicius had access to the works of Presocratics directly or merely to collections of excerpts but doesn't draw any firm conclusions either way.\r\n\r\nThe third chapter turns to Simplicius' use of early Peripatetics such as Theophrastus and Eudemus. Baltussen argues that Simplicius took the early Peripatetics\u2014and especially Theophrastus\u2014very seriously in his exegeses of Aristotle because Theophrastus would have known Aristotle personally, giving his glosses an added authority. This is a departure from the attitudes of previous Platonic commentators on Aristotle. Although Simplicius shares the wider Late Platonic desire to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, there is also a strong desire to get Aristotle right, and no one is more likely to help in that task than Theophrastus. Baltussen suggests that we conceive Theophrastus himself as part of the Platonic commentary tradition, given his own comments on the Timaeus, but philosophical engagement with a previous author is not quite the same thing as commentary.\r\n\r\nThe Peripatetic theme continues in the fourth chapter, which is devoted to Alexander of Aphrodisias. Baltussen offers a detailed and slightly labored analysis of the motivations behind Simplicius' regular and extensive quotation from Alexander, but the question seems relatively straightforward. Why did Simplicius make use of Alexander's commentaries on Aristotle in his own commentaries on Aristotle? Because Alexander has lots of interesting things to say about Aristotle. The focus here again is on form rather than content, methodology rather than philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe fifth chapter examines the Platonic commentary tradition before Simplicius and discusses Simplicius' use of Plotinus and the Post-Plotinian tradition of harmonizing commentaries from Porphyry onwards. Simplicius' immediate teacher Ammonius is discussed briefly but deserves more attention. For instance, we were told in the opening chapter that Simplicius' rejection of originality was mere self-deprecation, but presumably that claim could be tested to some degree via a comparison between his own views and those of his teacher. The same goes for his later mentor Damascius.\r\n\r\nThe final chapter turns to the theme of polemic and focuses its attention on Simplicius' exchanges with his arch-rival John Philoponus, another Platonic commentator, but also a Christian. Baltussen prefaces his discussion with an account of the tensions and hostilities between Christians and pagans in late antiquity. Once again, Simplicius is presented as the defender of an embattled pagan philosophical tradition, taking Philoponus to task for his attacks against Proclus and Aristotle in De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Proclum. Baltussen highlights the rhetorical aspects of Simplicius' polemics rather than the content of the dispute, so once more methodology is the principal focus. The intensity of Simplicius' personal references to Philoponus (\"raving swine\") is contrasted with his sober and respectful references to Alexander.\r\n\r\nAn epilogue sums up the proceedings. One of the central themes to emerge from the book as a whole is the claim that, in order to understand what Simplicius is doing in his commentaries, we must take into account his commitment to pagan religion as well as philosophy. We should see the commentaries not merely as \"scholarly schoolbooks\" but rather as steps on a long road toward a more existential transformation. This religious dimension of Late Platonism should not be overlooked, Baltussen argues, if we want to understand properly what Simplicius is trying to achieve. The commentaries are his attempt to preserve the entire pagan philosophical and religious tradition within an increasingly hostile Christian world. On this final point, as well as a number of others, Baltussen sketches a broad context within which to think about what Simplicius is\r\ndoing but there is much less in the way of detailed analysis of what he actually did do, what he argued for, or what philosophical\r\npositions he himself held. This is in part simply a reflection of the sheer length of the commentaries themselves and no one could\r\noffer a detailed analysis of their contents within the covers of a single volume.\r\nI said at the outset that five commentaries have come down to us under the name of Simplicius. Baltussen discusses only three of\r\nthem. He puts to one side the De Anima commentary and he may well be right to do so, but it would have been nice to have seen a\r\nfuller discussion of the text and the question of its authorship.[2] He also more or less ignores the commentary on the Enchiridion of\r\nEpictetus. Although it does get the occasional mention (e.g. p. 43) Baltussen proceeds as if it doesn't exist, at one point writing 'all\r\nthree extant commentaries' (p. 34). In his interesting attempt to reconstruct 'the library of Simplicius' (pp. 211-15), neither\r\nEpictetus nor Arrian get a mention. This is a great shame for a number of reasons. The in Ench. is unique as the only surviving\r\ncommentary on a Stoic text to come down to us. Moreover, it is a commentary by a Late Platonist, and as a rule Late Platonists only\r\nwrote commentaries on Plato and Aristotle.[3] The way in which Late Platonists brought Aristotle into their curriculum is a\r\nwell-worn subject, but the desire to bring in a Stoic text is quite unusual. It complicates Simplicius' activity as a commentator in a\r\nnumber of interesting and significant ways. Presumably Baltussen would argue that this is part of Simplicius' desire to unite and\r\nthen preserve the entire pagan philosophical tradition in an increasingly hostile Christian world, but if that is the case then the in\r\nEnch. would form a potentially significant piece of evidence for Baltussen's thesis, one that has sadly been left out of the account. There is much in Baltussen's book that is of interest, but I'm not sure how far it goes in fleshing out a more rounded portrait of Simplicius. The focus of the volume throughout is squarely on Simplicius' use of other authors\u2014i.e., his quotations\u2014rather than Simplicius as an author or a philosopher in his own right. Baltussen consciously avoids discussing Simplicius qua philosopher on the basis that this has been done by others elsewhere. This is true to an extent, but what would be nice is a more synthetic volume that brings these discussions together in order to give us a complete picture. This book doesn't do that, although, to be fair, it doesn't ever claim to be trying to.\r\n\r\nWhat remains a desideratum, then, is a monograph that might combine Baltussen's methodological researches with an account of what is philosophically valuable in Simplicius. Most of my critical comments above have been asking for more discussion on various points, and no author can do everything in just one volume. I certainly hope that this book will encourage further work on Simplicius by both Baltussen and others that will help us to gain a fuller portrait of this still relatively neglected philosopher. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MiDP9FxKLHavo2S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":904,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2014]}

The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius, 2014
By: Gabor, Gary

Title	The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume	4
Issue	2
Pages	99-112
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Susanne Bobzien recently described “the volumes of the Greek commentators on Aristotle’s logical works” as “monumental” but “rarely creative.” While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien’s assessment obscures the occasional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one such example here—the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle’s ten categories. This topic would also animate later interpreters of Aristotle, sometimes with positive and sometimes more critical results. Kant, for instance, rejected Aristotle’s list for what he perceived as its capricious and arbitrary nature, arguing that Aristotle “had no principle” and merely “rounded them up as he stumbled upon them.” In fact, Kant was neither the first nor the last to perceive that Aristotle’s account of the categories needed some sort of justification. The existence of rival categorial schemes, in particular, demands it. In the ancient world, the Stoics provided a fourfold series of categories, and Plato provided a fivefold set of greatest kinds in the Sophist. More recently, E. J. Lowe has defended another fourfold Aristotelian-inspired ontology as fundamental. For Platonists of late antiquity, the question of justification for Aristotle’s categories had special force following Plotinus’s analysis and critique of them, along with the Stoic, Platonic, and other accounts in Enneads 6.1–2. Plotinus’s student Porphyry later defended and commented on Aristotle’s Categories, and Iamblichus reinterpreted and included the Categories in the philosophical curriculum that was to remain standard in the Neoplatonic schools for several centuries. For the Neoplatonic commentators working in these schools, one of the first questions raised in their commentaries was the justification that could be given to Aristotle’s tenfold scheme. I shall examine two such justifications: those given by Ammonius Hermiae, scholarch of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, during the second half of the fifth century AD, and his student Simplicius, the last great commentator in the Athenian Academy before its closure by Emperor Justinian in AD 529. Ammonius’s account of the categories is relatively simple, while Simplicius’s is more complex. Both, however, argue for a justification of the ten categories presented by Aristotle as in some sense a correct list. By comparing the two accounts, one can discern a distinct development in Neoplatonic justifications of Aristotle’s categories. [introduction p. 99-101]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mg1q6H4L6heepIU

{"_index":"sire","_id":"918","_score":null,"_source":{"id":918,"authors_free":[{"id":1357,"entry_id":918,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius"},"abstract":"Susanne Bobzien recently described \u201cthe volumes of the Greek commentators on Aristotle\u2019s logical works\u201d as \u201cmonumental\u201d but \u201crarely creative.\u201d While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien\u2019s assessment obscures the occasional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one such example here\u2014the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle\u2019s ten categories.\r\n\r\nThis topic would also animate later interpreters of Aristotle, sometimes with positive and sometimes more critical results. Kant, for instance, rejected Aristotle\u2019s list for what he perceived as its capricious and arbitrary nature, arguing that Aristotle \u201chad no principle\u201d and merely \u201crounded them up as he stumbled upon them.\u201d In fact, Kant was neither the first nor the last to perceive that Aristotle\u2019s account of the categories needed some sort of justification. The existence of rival categorial schemes, in particular, demands it. In the ancient world, the Stoics provided a fourfold series of categories, and Plato provided a fivefold set of greatest kinds in the Sophist. More recently, E. J. Lowe has defended another fourfold Aristotelian-inspired ontology as fundamental.\r\n\r\nFor Platonists of late antiquity, the question of justification for Aristotle\u2019s categories had special force following Plotinus\u2019s analysis and critique of them, along with the Stoic, Platonic, and other accounts in Enneads 6.1\u20132. Plotinus\u2019s student Porphyry later defended and commented on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and Iamblichus reinterpreted and included the Categories in the philosophical curriculum that was to remain standard in the Neoplatonic schools for several centuries.\r\n\r\nFor the Neoplatonic commentators working in these schools, one of the first questions raised in their commentaries was the justification that could be given to Aristotle\u2019s tenfold scheme. I shall examine two such justifications: those given by Ammonius Hermiae, scholarch of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, during the second half of the fifth century AD, and his student Simplicius, the last great commentator in the Athenian Academy before its closure by Emperor Justinian in AD 529.\r\n\r\nAmmonius\u2019s account of the categories is relatively simple, while Simplicius\u2019s is more complex. Both, however, argue for a justification of the ten categories presented by Aristotle as in some sense a correct list. By comparing the two accounts, one can discern a distinct development in Neoplatonic justifications of Aristotle\u2019s categories. [introduction p. 99-101]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mg1q6H4L6heepIU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":918,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"4","issue":"2","pages":"99-112"}},"sort":[2014]}

Φάος et τόπος. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chaldaïques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco), 2014
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Lecerf, Adrien (Ed.), Saudelli, Lucia (Ed.), Seng, Helmut (Ed.)

Title	Φάος et τόπος. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chaldaïques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2014
Published in	Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie
Pages	101-152
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Lecerf, Adrien , Saudelli, Lucia , Seng, Helmut
Translator(s)

La longue digression introduite par Simplicius dans son Commentaire à la Physique d’Aristote, qui est consacrée à la notion de « lieu » et qui prend la suite de l’explication continue du texte même d’Aristote (Physique IV 1-5, 208a27 - 213a11), est traditionnellement désignée par le titre (sans support dans la tradition manuscrite) de Corollarium de loco. Avec le Corollarium de tempore, qui accompagne parallèlement l’explication du traité aristotélicien du temps (Physique IV 10-14, 217b29 - 224a17), il constitue un diptyque essentiel pour notre connaissance de la philosophie néoplatonicienne de la Nature, car il offre sur les doctrines néoplatoniciennes de l’espace et du temps des exposés d’importance majeure. Le Corollarium de loco présente, sur 45 pages des CAG, une histoire néoplatonicienne des doctrines du « lieu », d’Aristote à Damascius (et Simplicius lui-même), qui nous a conservé de précieux fragments de deux traités perdus de Proclus et de Damascius, et suit un plan en deux parties très nettement distinguées. Une section dialectique, tout d’abord, dans laquelle Simplicius mène un examen critique des contradictions du dossier aristotélicien (Physique et De caelo), en répondant au traitement par Alexandre d’Aphrodise de la magna quaestio. Il discute dans cette première partie les doctrines antérieures à celle de Damascius (d’Aristote à Syrianus) et s’attache à comprendre les raisons de leur échec. Vient ensuite une pars construens, ou plutôt un exposé systématique consacré à la doctrine véridique du « lieu », celle de Damascius, que Simplicius retouche et précise. Dans la première partie, dialectique, Simplicius consacre près de 13 pages (de l’édition Diels), soit près du tiers de l’ensemble de la digression, à l’examen critique des doctrines du « lieu » qui se sont intéressées à un type de définition rejeté (et négligé) par Aristote, celui qui fait du lieu un « espace » ou une « étendue ». La discussion de ces doctrines (représentées sous des formes diverses par Démocrite, Straton de Lampsaque, Syrianus, et Proclus) est particulièrement importante car, conformément à une méthode d’origine aristotélicienne, l’examen dialectique des opinions consiste non seulement en une critique et une réfutation, mais vise aussi à extraire la part de vérité contenue dans les opinions examinées. La lecture d’ensemble de la digression permet de comprendre que Simplicius a prêté un intérêt tout particulier aux définitions du « lieu » comme « étendue » (corporelle ou incorporelle) parce qu’elles préfiguraient en quelque sorte – de façon certes maladroite et fautive – la doctrine de son maître Damascius. On passe alors de la considération de l’« étendue » à celle de la « distension » néoplatonicienne. En effet, lorsqu’il en vient à l’exposé complet de la doctrine de Damascius, Simplicius met en lumière le fait qu’il y a une liaison fondamentale entre le « lieu » et la « distension », qui se réalise dans la Procession. Le lieu est une détermination « inétendue », qui « œuvre à la perfection des corps », et plus précisément il est la « mesure rassemblante » d’une modalité particulière de la « distension », désignée par le terme de « disposition » : disposition des parties d’une totalité à l’intérieur de cette totalité ou encore position d’un corps à l’intérieur d’un autre corps envisagé comme totalité plus englobante. Malgré l’autorité dont Proclus est revêtu aux yeux de tous les néoplatoniciens de la fin de l’Antiquité, et malgré le respect profond que Simplicius éprouve pour lui, il lui importe ici de réfuter que le lieu soit un corps, fût-ce un corps immatériel, afin que le lieu puisse ultérieurement être défini comme une mesure inétendue et incorporelle de la « distension » des corps (Damascius). Dans le traité perdu dont des passages centraux sont conservés par Simplicius, Proclus démontre sa doctrine par la conjonction d’une démarche proprement philosophique et apodictique, et par un recours à deux confirmations offertes par des autorités sacrées : la Raison rencontre la Révélation. La première démarche part de prémisses aristotéliciennes (Physique IV 4, 212a2-6). Elle promeut l’hypothèse selon laquelle le « lieu » serait une « étendue », et elle démontre que c’est une « étendue » corporelle, comprise comme sphère de lumière pure coïncidant avec la sphère cosmique : un corps immobile, indivisible, immatériel. La seconde démarche consiste à poser la concordance de cette conclusion rationnelle avec les données du mythe d’Er dans la République, et avec le sens attribué à un vers chaldaïque qui énonce de façon mystérieuse que l’Âme du Monde « anime de fond en comble lumière, feu, éther, mondes ». Le lieu-lumière démontré par la procédure rationnelle est enseigné par le sens profond (et caché) que l’on décèle dans le mythe (c’est la colonne de lumière de République X 616b4-c4) et dans la parole même des dieux. Le commentaire de Proclus sur la République identifie parallèlement la lumière de République X au lieu du Ciel, réaffirme son identité avec la lumière chaldaïque, et fait référence à ce traité en offrant une doctrine tout à fait concordante. L’autorité des Oracles Chaldaïques est pour les néoplatoniciens de cette époque la source ultime de la Vérité, et Simplicius engage contre Proclus, pas à pas, une longue discussion exégétique sur le sens de cet Oracle. Cette discussion est un document exceptionnel sur l’intérêt porté aux Oracles Chaldaïques par Simplicius, au sein même d’un commentaire sur Aristote et sur une question de physique. L’objet des pages qui suivent est de proposer une traduction commentée de l’ensemble du texte de Simplicius (In Phys. 611,8 - 618,7 D.), de façon à montrer l’osmose entre la démarche proprement philosophique de Simplicius (et de Proclus), qui correspond à une recherche de Physique, et l’opération herméneutique appliquée à une parole oraculaire, laquelle est une confirmation d’un raisonnement et une expérience de foi puisqu’elle porte sur un objet divin. La traduction du texte de Simplicius sera précédée de quelques remarques préliminaires sur l’Oracle 51. Le texte grec de Simplicius est accessible à la fois dans l’édition de Diels et dans l’édition mise en ligne déjà mentionnée (éd. Golitsis-Hoffmann). [introduction p. 101-106]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/32ZuxPLp2VNh3t0

Zenon von Elea. Studien zu den 'Argumenten gegen die Vielheit' und zum sogenannten 'Argument des Orts', 2014
By: Köhler, Gerhard

Title	Zenon von Elea. Studien zu den 'Argumenten gegen die Vielheit' und zum sogenannten 'Argument des Orts'
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2014
Publication Place	Berlin – München – Boston
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Volume	330
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Köhler, Gerhard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Zenon von Elea (5. Jh. v. Chr.) gilt als einer der bedeutendsten vorsokratischen Philosophen. Mit Ausnahme von höchstens fünf wörtlichen Zitaten besteht die gesamte Überlieferung zu ihm jedoch nur aus kursorischen Paraphrasen und teils kontroversen Diskussionen seiner Überlegungen bei späteren Autoren. Durch umsichtige und kritische Auswertung sämtlicher relevanter Quellen lassen sich gleichwohl über seine beiden sogenannten „Argumente gegen die Vielheit“ (Frg. B1-3) sowie über das sogenannte „Argument des Orts“ (Frg. B5) philologisch schlüssige, sachlich plausible und historisch stimmige Hypothesen aufstellen. Das Ergebnis besteht in zwei neuen Rekonstruktionen, die im Vergleich zum bisherigen Forschungsstand den gesamten Überlieferungsbefund verständlicher sowie Zenons ursprüngliche Argumentation und Zielsetzung einsichtiger werden lassen. Folgt man diesen beiden Rekonstruktionen, so erscheint nicht nur die Beziehung, die seit der Antike zwischen den Überlegungen Zenons und der Philosophie des Parmenides angenommen wird, in einem neuen Licht, sondern es werden womöglich auch einige geistesgeschichtliche Entwicklungen des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. Chr. präziser fassbar, als dies bislang der Fall war.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hGt6hibiF7pGHFl

{"_index":"sire","_id":"242","_score":null,"_source":{"id":242,"authors_free":[{"id":310,"entry_id":242,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":521,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"K\u00f6hler, Gerhard","free_first_name":"Gerhard","free_last_name":"K\u00f6hler","norm_person":{"id":521,"first_name":"Gerhard","last_name":"K\u00f6hler","full_name":"K\u00f6hler, Gerhard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068591013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zenon von Elea. Studien zu den 'Argumenten gegen die Vielheit' und zum sogenannten 'Argument des Orts'","main_title":{"title":"Zenon von Elea. Studien zu den 'Argumenten gegen die Vielheit' und zum sogenannten 'Argument des Orts'"},"abstract":"Zenon von Elea (5. Jh. v. Chr.) gilt als einer der bedeutendsten vorsokratischen Philosophen. Mit Ausnahme von h\u00f6chstens f\u00fcnf w\u00f6rtlichen Zitaten besteht die gesamte \u00dcberlieferung zu ihm jedoch nur aus kursorischen Paraphrasen und teils kontroversen Diskussionen seiner \u00dcberlegungen bei sp\u00e4teren Autoren. Durch umsichtige und kritische Auswertung s\u00e4mtlicher relevanter Quellen lassen sich gleichwohl \u00fcber seine beiden sogenannten \u201eArgumente gegen die Vielheit\u201c (Frg. B1-3) sowie \u00fcber das sogenannte \u201eArgument des Orts\u201c (Frg. B5) philologisch schl\u00fcssige, sachlich plausible und historisch stimmige Hypothesen aufstellen. Das Ergebnis besteht in zwei neuen Rekonstruktionen, die im Vergleich zum bisherigen Forschungsstand den gesamten \u00dcberlieferungsbefund verst\u00e4ndlicher sowie Zenons urspr\u00fcngliche Argumentation und Zielsetzung einsichtiger werden lassen. Folgt man diesen beiden Rekonstruktionen, so erscheint nicht nur die Beziehung, die seit der Antike zwischen den \u00dcberlegungen Zenons und der Philosophie des Parmenides angenommen wird, in einem neuen Licht, sondern es werden wom\u00f6glich auch einige geistesgeschichtliche Entwicklungen des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. Chr. pr\u00e4ziser fassbar, als dies bislang der Fall war.","btype":1,"date":"2014","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hGt6hibiF7pGHFl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":521,"full_name":"K\u00f6hler, Gerhard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":242,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 M\u00fcnchen \u2013 Boston","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"330","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel, 2014
By: Hoine, Pieter d' (Ed.), Van Riel, Gerd (Ed.)

Title	Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1
Volume	49
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd
Translator(s)

This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century. The main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ga4rzoji8r8swzw

{"_index":"sire","_id":"258","_score":null,"_source":{"id":258,"authors_free":[{"id":328,"entry_id":258,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1943,"entry_id":258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","main_title":{"title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel"},"abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

ΚΑΛΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΕΤΗ. Bellezza e virtù. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti, 2014
By: Cardullo, R. Loredana (Ed.), Iozzia, Daniele (Ed.)

Title	ΚΑΛΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΕΤΗ. Bellezza e virtù. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti
Type	Edited Book
Language	Italian
Date	2014
Publication Place	Acireale - Rom
Publisher	Bonanno
Series	Analecta humanitatis. Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione dell'Università degli Studi di Catania diretta da Santo Di Nuovo
Volume	29
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Cardullo, R. Loredana , Iozzia, Daniele
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iYDFyV0tpKo9lmt

{"_index":"sire","_id":"323","_score":null,"_source":{"id":323,"authors_free":[{"id":410,"entry_id":323,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":411,"entry_id":323,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":247,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Iozzia, Daniele","free_first_name":"Daniele","free_last_name":"Iozzia","norm_person":{"id":247,"first_name":"Daniele ","last_name":"Iozzia","full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036757870","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u039a\u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u0397. Bellezza e virt\u00f9. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti","main_title":{"title":"\u039a\u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u0397. Bellezza e virt\u00f9. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iYDFyV0tpKo9lmt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":247,"full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":323,"pubplace":"Acireale - Rom","publisher":"Bonanno","series":"Analecta humanitatis. Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione dell'Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Catania diretta da Santo Di Nuovo","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy, 2014
By: Destrée, Pierre (Ed.), Zingano, Marco (Ed.)

Title	What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco
Translator(s)

The problem of responsibility in moral philosophy has been lively debated in the last decades, especially since the publication of Harry Frankfurt's seminal paper, 'Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility' (1969). Compatibilists - also known as 'soft' determinists - and, on the other side, incompatibilists - libertarians and 'hard' determinists - are the main contenders in this major academic controversy. The debate goes back to Antiquity. After Aristotle, compatibilists, and especially the Stoics, debated this issue with the incompatibilists, notably Epicurus (though his classification as an incompatibilist has been disputed in modern scholarship), Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plutarch. The problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' hêmin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well. With contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destrée, Javier Echeñique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana Gómez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauvé Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"329","_score":null,"_source":{"id":329,"authors_free":[{"id":421,"entry_id":329,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":423,"entry_id":329,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":472,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zingano, Marco","free_first_name":"Marco","free_last_name":"Zingano","norm_person":{"id":472,"first_name":"Marco","last_name":"Zingano","full_name":"Zingano, Marco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102225592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"The problem of responsibility in moral philosophy has been lively debated in the last decades, especially since the publication of Harry Frankfurt's seminal paper, 'Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility' (1969). Compatibilists - also known as 'soft' determinists - and, on the other side, incompatibilists - libertarians and 'hard' determinists - are the main contenders in this major academic controversy. The debate goes back to Antiquity. After Aristotle, compatibilists, and especially the Stoics, debated this issue with the incompatibilists, notably Epicurus (though his classification as an incompatibilist has been disputed in modern scholarship), Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plutarch.\r\n\r\nThe problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' h\u00eamin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well.\r\n\r\nWith contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destr\u00e9e, Javier Eche\u00f1ique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana G\u00f3mez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauv\u00e9 Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":472,"full_name":"Zingano, Marco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":329,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

The Neoplatonic Socrates, 2014
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)

Title	The Neoplatonic Socrates
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Philadelphia
Publisher	University of Pennsylvania Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)

Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates "really" was—the true history of his activities and beliefs—has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods. In The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity. Contributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, François Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn

{"_index":"sire","_id":"344","_score":null,"_source":{"id":344,"authors_free":[{"id":2072,"entry_id":344,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2073,"entry_id":344,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates"},"abstract":"Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates \"really\" was\u2014the true history of his activities and beliefs\u2014has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods.\r\n\r\nIn The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.\r\n\r\nContributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, Fran\u00e7ois Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.\r\n[official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, 2014
By: Remes, Pauliina (Ed.), Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (Ed.)

Title	The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	London – New York
Publisher	Routledge
Series	Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla
Translator(s)

The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts: (Re)sources, instruction and interaction Methods and Styles of Exegesis Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics The legacy of Neoplatonism. The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S

{"_index":"sire","_id":"345","_score":null,"_source":{"id":345,"authors_free":[{"id":445,"entry_id":345,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":118,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Remes, Pauliina","free_first_name":"Pauliina","free_last_name":"Remes","norm_person":{"id":118,"first_name":"Pauliina","last_name":"Remes","full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103255665","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":446,"entry_id":345,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":119,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","free_first_name":"Svetla","free_last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","norm_person":{"id":119,"first_name":"Svetla","last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137698070","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:\r\n\r\n (Re)sources, instruction and interaction\r\n Methods and Styles of Exegesis\r\n Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives\r\n Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self\r\n Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology\r\n Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics\r\n The legacy of Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nThe Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":118,"full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":119,"full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":345,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie, 2014
By: Lecerf, Adrien (Ed.), Saudelli, Lucia (Ed.), Seng, Helmut (Ed.)

Title	Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2014
Publication Place	Heidelberg
Publisher	Winter
Series	Bibliotheca Chaldaica
Volume	4
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Lecerf, Adrien , Saudelli, Lucia , Seng, Helmut
Translator(s)

Les Oracles chaldaïques posent nombre de problèmes à lʼhistorien de la pensée antique, tant sur le plan de la forme que sur celui du fond. Texte datant du IIe siècle de notre ère, en vers principalement hexamétriques, dont nous ne possédons que des fragments et des témoignages, conservés par des auteurs postérieurs, en langue grecque et latine, les extraits à notre disposition recèlent une philosophie, dʼinspiration platonicienne, dont les thèmes principaux sont la triade divine formée de Père, Puissance et Intellect, les êtres intermédiaires, lʼâme et ses vicissitudes, les divers mondes. Les questions que nous souhaitons traiter, en publiant ces travaux de recherche, sont le rattachement des Oracles au mouvement philosophique du « médioplatonisme » et les rapports entre théologie chaldaïque et théologie chrétienne. Nous étudions également la fortune et lʼinfortune des vers chaldaïques dans lʼAntiquité tardive et jusquʼau XVIIe siècle, en dégageant dʼautre part les perspectives dʼune nouvelle édition des Oracles. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/w8DvrIrkCyncwcE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"357","_score":null,"_source":{"id":357,"authors_free":[{"id":468,"entry_id":357,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":197,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","free_first_name":"Adrien","free_last_name":"Lecerf","norm_person":{"id":197,"first_name":"Adrien","last_name":"Lecerf","full_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068302194","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":469,"entry_id":357,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":311,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","free_first_name":"Lucia","free_last_name":"Saudelli","norm_person":{"id":311,"first_name":"Lucia","last_name":"Saudelli","full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047619067","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":470,"entry_id":357,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":462,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Seng, Helmut","free_first_name":"Helmut","free_last_name":"Seng","norm_person":{"id":462,"first_name":"Helmut","last_name":"Seng","full_name":"Seng, Helmut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114500509","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Oracles Chalda\u00efques: fragments et philosophie","main_title":{"title":"Oracles Chalda\u00efques: fragments et philosophie"},"abstract":"Les Oracles chalda\u00efques posent nombre de probl\u00e8mes \u00e0 l\u02bchistorien de la pens\u00e9e antique, tant sur le plan de la forme que sur celui du fond.\r\n\r\nTexte datant du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, en vers principalement hexam\u00e9triques, dont nous ne poss\u00e9dons que des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages, conserv\u00e9s par des auteurs post\u00e9rieurs, en langue grecque et latine, les extraits \u00e0 notre disposition rec\u00e8lent une philosophie, d\u02bcinspiration platonicienne, dont les th\u00e8mes principaux sont la triade divine form\u00e9e de P\u00e8re, Puissance et Intellect, les \u00eatres interm\u00e9diaires, l\u02bc\u00e2me et ses vicissitudes, les divers mondes.\r\n\r\nLes questions que nous souhaitons traiter, en publiant ces travaux de recherche, sont le rattachement des Oracles au mouvement philosophique du \u00ab m\u00e9dioplatonisme \u00bb et les rapports entre th\u00e9ologie chalda\u00efque et th\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne. Nous \u00e9tudions \u00e9galement la fortune et l\u02bcinfortune des vers chalda\u00efques dans l\u02bcAntiquit\u00e9 tardive et jusqu\u02bcau XVIIe si\u00e8cle, en d\u00e9gageant d\u02bcautre part les perspectives d\u02bcune nouvelle \u00e9dition des Oracles. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/w8DvrIrkCyncwcE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":197,"full_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":311,"full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":462,"full_name":"Seng, Helmut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":357,"pubplace":"Heidelberg","publisher":"Winter","series":"Bibliotheca Chaldaica","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

De l'Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche, 2014
By: Coda, Elisa (Ed.), Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia (Ed.)

Title	De l'Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2014
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Vrin
Series	Études musulmanes
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Coda, Elisa , Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia
Translator(s)

La circulation du savoir philosophique à travers les traductions du grec au syriaque, du grec à l’arabe, du syriaque à l’arabe, de l’arabe au latin forme, depuis un siècle et plus de recherches savantes, un domaine scientifique à part entière. Ce volume réunit des spécialistes des disciplines du domaine voulant rendre hommage à un collègue dont l’activité a ouvert une voie, Henri Hugonnard-Roche. Spécialiste de la transmission du grec au syriaque de la logique aristotélicienne, Henri Hugonnard-Roche a montré par ses recherches la continuité entre la philosophie de l’Antiquité tardive et la pensée des chrétiens de langue syriaque d’un côté, des savants musulmans écrivant en arabe, de l’autre. Réunis souvent par ce que Werner Jaeger avait autrefois désigné comme « la portée œcuménique de l’Antiquité classique », des musulmans et des chrétiens faisant partie d’un cercle philosophique se penchaient, dans la ville de Bagdad au Xe siècle, sur le texte d’Aristote. Leur « Aristote » était souvent celui de l’Antiquité tardive : l’Aristote de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Alexandrie que les intellectuels de la Syrie chrétienne avaient déjà rencontré quelque quatre siècles auparavant et qu’ils avaient traduit, en même temps que Galien, et parfois commenté. Des noms presque inconnus comme celui de Sergius de Resh’ayna (mort en 536) commencent dans nos manuels à en côtoyer d’autres bien plus connus, comme celui de Boèce, grâce aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche. Ce volume, par la variété des langues qui s’y entremêlent, des traditions de pensée qu’il fait fusionner, par l’acribie des contributions et le caractère novateur des éditions de textes et des études ponctuelles qu’il contient, témoigne du rayonnement international du savant auquel il est offert, et de l’effervescence du domaine de recherche auquel il a si grandement contribué. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j7haSVMVm5wa9du

{"_index":"sire","_id":"360","_score":null,"_source":{"id":360,"authors_free":[{"id":474,"entry_id":360,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":143,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Coda, Elisa","free_first_name":"Elisa","free_last_name":"Coda","norm_person":{"id":143,"first_name":"Elisa","last_name":"Coda","full_name":"Coda, Elisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168595843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":475,"entry_id":360,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":213,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","free_first_name":"Cecilia","free_last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","norm_person":{"id":213,"first_name":"Cecilia","last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047649543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"De l'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive au Moyen \u00c2ge. \u00c9tudes de logique aristot\u00e9licienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes \u00e0 Henri Hugonnard-Roche","main_title":{"title":"De l'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive au Moyen \u00c2ge. \u00c9tudes de logique aristot\u00e9licienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes \u00e0 Henri Hugonnard-Roche"},"abstract":"La circulation du savoir philosophique \u00e0 travers les traductions du grec au syriaque, du grec \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, du syriaque \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, de l\u2019arabe au latin forme, depuis un si\u00e8cle et plus de recherches savantes, un domaine scientifique \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re. Ce volume r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes des disciplines du domaine voulant rendre hommage \u00e0 un coll\u00e8gue dont l\u2019activit\u00e9 a ouvert une voie, Henri Hugonnard-Roche.\r\nSp\u00e9cialiste de la transmission du grec au syriaque de la logique aristot\u00e9licienne, Henri Hugonnard-Roche a montr\u00e9 par ses recherches la continuit\u00e9 entre la philosophie de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive et la pens\u00e9e des chr\u00e9tiens de langue syriaque d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, des savants musulmans \u00e9crivant en arabe, de l\u2019autre. R\u00e9unis souvent par ce que Werner Jaeger avait autrefois d\u00e9sign\u00e9 comme \u00ab la port\u00e9e \u0153cum\u00e9nique de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 classique \u00bb, des musulmans et des chr\u00e9tiens faisant partie d\u2019un cercle philosophique se penchaient, dans la ville de Bagdad au Xe si\u00e8cle, sur le texte d\u2019Aristote. Leur \u00ab Aristote \u00bb \u00e9tait souvent celui de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive : l\u2019Aristote de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Alexandrie que les intellectuels de la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne avaient d\u00e9j\u00e0 rencontr\u00e9 quelque quatre si\u00e8cles auparavant et qu\u2019ils avaient traduit, en m\u00eame temps que Galien, et parfois comment\u00e9. Des noms presque inconnus comme celui de Sergius de Resh\u2019ayna (mort en 536) commencent dans nos manuels \u00e0 en c\u00f4toyer d\u2019autres bien plus connus, comme celui de Bo\u00e8ce, gr\u00e2ce aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche. Ce volume, par la vari\u00e9t\u00e9 des langues qui s\u2019y entrem\u00ealent, des traditions de pens\u00e9e qu\u2019il fait fusionner, par l\u2019acribie des contributions et le caract\u00e8re novateur des \u00e9ditions de textes et des \u00e9tudes ponctuelles qu\u2019il contient, t\u00e9moigne du rayonnement international du savant auquel il est offert, et de l\u2019effervescence du domaine de recherche auquel il a si grandement contribu\u00e9. [Author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j7haSVMVm5wa9du","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":143,"full_name":"Coda, Elisa","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":213,"full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":360,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"\u00c9tudes musulmanes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us, 2014
By: Wildberg, Christian, Destrée, Pierre (Ed.), Zingano, Marco (Ed.)

Title	The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy
Pages	329-350
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s)	Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco
Translator(s)

The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of "impetus" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd

{"_index":"sire","_id":"427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":427,"authors_free":[{"id":573,"entry_id":427,"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":574,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":576,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":472,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zingano, Marco","free_first_name":"Marco","free_last_name":"Zingano","norm_person":{"id":472,"first_name":"Marco","last_name":"Zingano","full_name":"Zingano, Marco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102225592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"},"abstract":"The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of \"impetus\" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":472,"full_name":"Zingano, Marco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":427,"section_of":329,"pages":"329-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":329,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Destr\u00e9e2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The problem of responsibility in moral philosophy has been lively debated in the last decades, especially since the publication of Harry Frankfurt's seminal paper, 'Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility' (1969). Compatibilists - also known as 'soft' determinists - and, on the other side, incompatibilists - libertarians and 'hard' determinists - are the main contenders in this major academic controversy. The debate goes back to Antiquity. After Aristotle, compatibilists, and especially the Stoics, debated this issue with the incompatibilists, notably Epicurus (though his classification as an incompatibilist has been disputed in modern scholarship), Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plutarch.\r\n\r\nThe problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' h\u00eamin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well.\r\n\r\nWith contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destr\u00e9e, Javier Eche\u00f1ique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana G\u00f3mez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauv\u00e9 Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":329,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique, 2014
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2014
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76

{"_index":"sire","_id":"74","_score":null,"_source":{"id":74,"authors_free":[{"id":82,"entry_id":74,"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":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique","main_title":{"title":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique"},"abstract":"This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":74,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.1-4’, 2014
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.1-4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bristol Classical Press
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hankinson, R. J.(Hankinson, Robert J.) ,

In chapter 1 of On the Heavens Aristotle defines body, and then notoriously ruptures dynamics by introducing a fifth element, beyond Plato's four, to explain the rotation of the heavens, which, like nearly all Greeks, Aristotle took to be real, not apparent. Even a member of his school, Xenarchus, we are told, rejected his fifth element. The Neoplatonist Simplicius seeks to harmonise Plato and Aristotle. Plato, he says, thought that the heavens were composed of all four elements but with the purest kind of fire, namely light, predominating. That Plato would not mind this being called a fifth element is shown by his associating with the heavens the fifth of the five convex regular solids recognised by geometry. Simplicius follows Aristotle's view that one of the lower elements, fire, also rotates, as shown by the behaviour of comets. But such motion, though natural for the fifth elements, is super-natural for fire. Simplicius reveals that the Aristotelian Alexander of Aphrodisias recognised the need to supplement Aristotle and account for the annual approach and retreat of planets by means of Ptolemy's epicycles or eccentrics. Aristotle's philosopher-god is turned by Simplicius, following his teacher Ammonius, into a creator-god, like Plato's. But the creation is beginningless, as shown by the argument that, if you try to imagine a time when it began, you cannot answer the question, 'Why not sooner?' In explaining the creation, Simplicius follows the Neoplatonist expansion of Aristotle's four 'causes' to six. The final result gives us a cosmology very considerably removed from Aristotle's. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dj0TQS2KoG08Skq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"106","_score":null,"_source":{"id":106,"authors_free":[{"id":126,"entry_id":106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":168,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hankinson, R. J.","free_first_name":"R. J.","free_last_name":"Hankinson","norm_person":{"id":168,"first_name":"Robert J.","last_name":"Hankinson","full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","short_ident":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129477370","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2245,"entry_id":106,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius, Cilicius","free_first_name":"Cilicius","free_last_name":"Simplicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.1-4\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.1-4\u2019"},"abstract":"In chapter 1 of On the Heavens Aristotle defines body, and then notoriously ruptures dynamics by introducing a fifth element, beyond Plato's four, to explain the rotation of the heavens, which, like nearly all Greeks, Aristotle took to be real, not apparent. Even a member of his school, Xenarchus, we are told, rejected his fifth element. The Neoplatonist Simplicius seeks to harmonise Plato and Aristotle. Plato, he says, thought that the heavens were composed of all four elements but with the purest kind of fire, namely light, predominating. That Plato would not mind this being called a fifth element is shown by his associating with the heavens the fifth of the five convex regular solids recognised by geometry.\r\nSimplicius follows Aristotle's view that one of the lower elements, fire, also rotates, as shown by the behaviour of comets. But such motion, though natural for the fifth elements, is super-natural for fire. Simplicius reveals that the Aristotelian Alexander of Aphrodisias recognised the need to supplement Aristotle and account for the annual approach and retreat of planets by means of Ptolemy's epicycles or eccentrics.\r\nAristotle's philosopher-god is turned by Simplicius, following his teacher Ammonius, into a creator-god, like Plato's. But the creation is beginningless, as shown by the argument that, if you try to imagine a time when it began, you cannot answer the question, 'Why not sooner?' In explaining the creation, Simplicius follows the Neoplatonist expansion of Aristotle's four 'causes' to six. The final result gives us a cosmology very considerably removed from Aristotle's. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dj0TQS2KoG08Skq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":168,"full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":106,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bristol Classical Press","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.), 2014
By: Van Dusen, David

Title	Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	The Classical Review
Volume	64
Issue	2
Pages	436-437
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Van Dusen, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Inferno IV, when Dante catches sight of him in a mild foyer to the spiraling pit of hell, Averroes is simply described as “he who made the great Comment.” But in Convivio IV, the only other place where Dante references him, Averroes is specifically “the Commentator on Aristotle’s De Anima III.” Dante wrote this in the first decade of the fourteenth century, when Averroes was still, in effect, the commentator on De Anima 3. But by the last decades of the fifteenth century, a Simplicius commentary on the De Anima was being circulated in Italy by émigrés from Constantinople. This commentary rapidly exerted an influence on figures like Pico della Mirandola and Agostino Nifo. It saw its first Greek edition in Venice in 1527, with a complete Latin translation appearing in 1543, also in Venice. As its first translator pointed out in his prefatory letter, Averroes now had a contender in this De Anima commentary. The title of a 1553 Latin translation left no doubt: Commentaria Simplicii Profundissimi & Acutissimi Philosophi in Tres Libros De Anima Aristotelis. By the end of the sixteenth century, this commentary had inspired a vocal coterie in Italy—the so-called sectatores Simplicii. Despite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, “Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima”, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: “As no other scholar apparently shares Hadot’s view, there is no need for further polemics” (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius’ circles, that it represents “an original and personal engagement with Aristotle’s text” (p. 4), and that the commentator “uses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text” (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: “Modern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts ‘to set right’ a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures” (p. 7). The manuscript basis of S.’s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck’s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: “Hayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina” (p. 149). A concise list of S.’s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume. S.’s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6–13. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (“That also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...”, p. 101). The volume’s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius’ Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists’ appropriation and transmission of Aristotle. Ps.-Simplicius’ text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages—not the last paragraphs of Physics 4—that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of “time” to the “soul.” (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he—like contemporary philosophers—turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time—and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity—would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3. There is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius’ commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body—sexuality, and so on—in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that “the heart” is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas “if the object is pleasant, some other part” is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius’ gloss: “The heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (γεννητικὰ μόρια) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (ἀφροδισιαστικῶν ἡδονῶν)” (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle’s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: “The intellect is not wholly master (οὐ τὸ ὅλον κύριος) of the movement of the living being” (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine’s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus’ refusal of a disciple who was “pursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (τὰς ὑπογαστρίους ἡδονάς),” as Damascius reports? The early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not “the Commentator on Aristotle’s De Anima III.” Ps.-Simplicius’ reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access—in conscientious English and in full—to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a “Platonic succession” in Athens. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1294","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1294,"authors_free":[{"id":1884,"entry_id":1294,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":74,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Dusen, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Van Dusen","norm_person":{"id":74,"first_name":"David ","last_name":"Van Dusen","full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066385637","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)","main_title":{"title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)"},"abstract":"In Inferno IV, when Dante catches sight of him in a mild foyer to the spiraling pit of hell, Averroes is simply described as \u201che who made the great Comment.\u201d But in Convivio IV, the only other place where Dante references him, Averroes is specifically \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Dante wrote this in the first decade of the fourteenth century, when Averroes was still, in effect, the commentator on De Anima 3. But by the last decades of the fifteenth century, a Simplicius commentary on the De Anima was being circulated in Italy by \u00e9migr\u00e9s from Constantinople. This commentary rapidly exerted an influence on figures like Pico della Mirandola and Agostino Nifo. It saw its first Greek edition in Venice in 1527, with a complete Latin translation appearing in 1543, also in Venice. As its first translator pointed out in his prefatory letter, Averroes now had a contender in this De Anima commentary. The title of a 1553 Latin translation left no doubt: Commentaria Simplicii Profundissimi & Acutissimi Philosophi in Tres Libros De Anima Aristotelis. By the end of the sixteenth century, this commentary had inspired a vocal coterie in Italy\u2014the so-called sectatores Simplicii.\r\n\r\nDespite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, \u201cSimplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima\u201d, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: \u201cAs no other scholar apparently shares Hadot\u2019s view, there is no need for further polemics\u201d (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius\u2019 circles, that it represents \u201can original and personal engagement with Aristotle\u2019s text\u201d (p. 4), and that the commentator \u201cuses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text\u201d (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: \u201cModern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts \u2018to set right\u2019 a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures\u201d (p. 7).\r\n\r\nThe manuscript basis of S.\u2019s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck\u2019s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: \u201cHayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina\u201d (p. 149). A concise list of S.\u2019s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume.\r\n\r\nS.\u2019s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6\u201313. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (\u201cThat also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...\u201d, p. 101). The volume\u2019s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius\u2019 Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists\u2019 appropriation and transmission of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPs.-Simplicius\u2019 text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages\u2014not the last paragraphs of Physics 4\u2014that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of \u201ctime\u201d to the \u201csoul.\u201d (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he\u2014like contemporary philosophers\u2014turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time\u2014and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity\u2014would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3.\r\n\r\nThere is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body\u2014sexuality, and so on\u2014in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that \u201cthe heart\u201d is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas \u201cif the object is pleasant, some other part\u201d is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius\u2019 gloss: \u201cThe heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (\u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd)\u201d (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle\u2019s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: \u201cThe intellect is not wholly master (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) of the movement of the living being\u201d (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine\u2019s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus\u2019 refusal of a disciple who was \u201cpursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2),\u201d as Damascius reports?\r\n\r\nThe early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Ps.-Simplicius\u2019 reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access\u2014in conscientious English and in full\u2014to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a \u201cPlatonic succession\u201d in Athens. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":74,"full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1294,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"64","issue":"2","pages":"436-437"}},"sort":[2014]}

Categories and Subcategories, 2014
By: Tegtmeier, Erwin

Title	Categories and Subcategories
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Anuario Filosófico
Volume	47
Issue	2
Pages	395-411
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tegtmeier, Erwin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle’s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle’s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IN81x5WTB9e5jh5

{"_index":"sire","_id":"471","_score":null,"_source":{"id":471,"authors_free":[{"id":636,"entry_id":471,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":332,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","free_first_name":"Erwin","free_last_name":"Tegtmeier","norm_person":{"id":332,"first_name":"Erwin","last_name":"Tegtmeier","full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172413745","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Categories and Subcategories","main_title":{"title":"Categories and Subcategories"},"abstract":"Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle\u2019s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle\u2019s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IN81x5WTB9e5jh5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":332,"full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":471,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anuario Filos\u00f3fico","volume":"47","issue":"2","pages":"395-411"}},"sort":[2014]}

Science théologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d’Aristote, 2014
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Coda, Elisa (Ed.), Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia (Ed.)

Title	Science théologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d’Aristote
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2014
Published in	De l'Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche
Pages	277-363
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Coda, Elisa , Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia
Translator(s)

En hommage aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche sur la philosophie naturelle dans le Moyen Âge latin, sur l’astronomie et la cosmologie, mais aussi sur les commentaires arabes au De Caelo d’Aristote, et plus généralement sur la postérité syriaque et arabe de la pensée aristotélicienne, cette étude générale portera sur un texte grec de l’Antiquité tardive : le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo. Son propos est de considérer la nature de la religion philosophique néoplatonicienne dans le commentaire de Simplicius et d’en proposer une interprétation d’ensemble, en nouant les fils d’une recherche engagée dans trois publications antérieures : un article ancien consacré à la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon et à la question de la structure physique de la substance céleste, et deux autres études, plus récentes, consacrées à la triade chaldaïque Amour - Vérité - Foi (Érōs, Alêtheia, Pistis), qui a été formalisée par Proclus comme principe dynamique de la prière, et sur laquelle les commentaires à la Physique et au De Caelo offrent de précieux témoignages. Cette triade de puissances anagogiques est à l’œuvre notamment dans cet « hymne » au Démiurge que constitue le Commentaire au De Caelo. Au cours de la présente enquête, consacrée à une interprétation globale de l’œuvre de Simplicius, on complétera le dossier déjà rassemblé au sujet de la triade chaldaïque, en produisant notamment deux textes supplémentaires de Simplicius qui confirment explicitement que l’élaboration d’une pistis philosophique, à l’extrême fin de l’Antiquité, doit se comprendre dans le contexte de la controverse païenne contre l’« athéisme » chrétien. La traduction commentée d’un long extrait du commentaire, en annexe, permettra enfin d’étudier de près les présupposés spécifiquement néoplatoniciens qui guident l’exégète dans sa lecture d’Aristote, et les enjeux théologiques qui dominent son interprétation du De Caelo et préparent, dans l’expérience de la Foi, une union de « sympathie » avec la substance même du Ciel et avec le Démiurge. L’étude des œuvres philosophiques de l’Antiquité tardive, principalement des textes néoplatoniciens grecs, favorisée par un nombre impressionnant d’éditions critiques d’importance majeure, a connu ces dernières décennies un profond renouvellement herméneutique, grâce à une compréhension toujours approfondie des doctrines elles-mêmes, mais aussi à une attention accrue portée aux dimensions rhétoriques de ces textes, comme aux enjeux historiques, politiques, religieux, qui sont inséparables du très complexe système philosophique en devenir, forgé pendant près de quatre siècles, de Porphyre jusqu’aux derniers professeurs d’Alexandrie. L’étude du néoplatonisme ne peut être séparée de l’histoire générale, politique et religieuse, de l’Antiquité tardive. La théologie savante et la philosophie sont intimement liées, soit que la théologie apparaisse comme une « partie » de la philosophie, soit que l’ensemble du système philosophique se désigne lui-même comme une théologie, ainsi que le montrent les ouvrages majeurs de Proclus, intitulés Peri tôn kata Platōna Theologias (Théologie Platonicienne) ou Stoicheiosis Theologikê (Éléments de théologie), qui présentent selon des modes d’exposition très différents le déploiement de l’ensemble du système. La théologie savante s’enrichit et s’accompagne d’autres dimensions relevant du mode de vie même des philosophes néoplatoniciens et de leurs pratiques : rituels théurgiques, formes diverses de la piété à l’égard des dieux (eusebeia), mais aussi religion personnelle ou encore engagement dans la polémique anti-chrétienne. L’interprétation des textes eux-mêmes a été renouvelée par une attention accrue portée aux genres littéraires philosophiques et à la dimension pragmatique des œuvres. Les analyses de Pierre Hadot, en particulier, nourries d’une réflexion sur les « jeux de langage » de Wittgenstein, ont contribué à renouveler l’interprétation des commentaires néoplatoniciens, ceux de Simplicius notamment, envisagés comme des œuvres littéraires à part entière, avec leur régime spécifique de systématicité, leurs règles, leurs codes, leurs finalités pragmatiques propres. Au-delà de l’érudition scientifique et de la puissance conceptuelle qui caractérise le discours philosophique – nourri à la fois de la tradition péripatéticienne et des recherches des exégètes néoplatoniciens depuis Plotin et Porphyre – ces commentaires doivent se comprendre aussi comme des exercices de méditation spirituelle à finalité anagogique, que l’auteur pratique à la fois pour lui-même et pour ses destinataires, auditeurs ou lecteurs. Par leur dimension pragmatique, ils relèvent de la vie philosophique (bios) et ne sont plus seulement des éléments du discours philosophique (logos). [introduction p. 277-279]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ns8nL2OGXc4Xj6K

{"_index":"sire","_id":"500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":500,"authors_free":[{"id":690,"entry_id":500,"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":691,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":143,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Coda, Elisa","free_first_name":"Elisa","free_last_name":"Coda","norm_person":{"id":143,"first_name":"Elisa","last_name":"Coda","full_name":"Coda, Elisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168595843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":692,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":213,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","free_first_name":"Cecilia","free_last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","norm_person":{"id":213,"first_name":"Cecilia","last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047649543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"En hommage aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche sur la philosophie naturelle dans le Moyen \u00c2ge latin, sur l\u2019astronomie et la cosmologie, mais aussi sur les commentaires arabes au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote, et plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement sur la post\u00e9rit\u00e9 syriaque et arabe de la pens\u00e9e aristot\u00e9licienne, cette \u00e9tude g\u00e9n\u00e9rale portera sur un texte grec de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive : le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo.\r\n\r\nSon propos est de consid\u00e9rer la nature de la religion philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans le commentaire de Simplicius et d\u2019en proposer une interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019ensemble, en nouant les fils d\u2019une recherche engag\u00e9e dans trois publications ant\u00e9rieures : un article ancien consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon et \u00e0 la question de la structure physique de la substance c\u00e9leste, et deux autres \u00e9tudes, plus r\u00e9centes, consacr\u00e9es \u00e0 la triade chalda\u00efque Amour - V\u00e9rit\u00e9 - Foi (\u00c9r\u014ds, Al\u00eatheia, Pistis), qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 formalis\u00e9e par Proclus comme principe dynamique de la pri\u00e8re, et sur laquelle les commentaires \u00e0 la Physique et au De Caelo offrent de pr\u00e9cieux t\u00e9moignages.\r\n\r\nCette triade de puissances anagogiques est \u00e0 l\u2019\u0153uvre notamment dans cet \u00ab hymne \u00bb au D\u00e9miurge que constitue le Commentaire au De Caelo. Au cours de la pr\u00e9sente enqu\u00eate, consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 une interpr\u00e9tation globale de l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius, on compl\u00e9tera le dossier d\u00e9j\u00e0 rassembl\u00e9 au sujet de la triade chalda\u00efque, en produisant notamment deux textes suppl\u00e9mentaires de Simplicius qui confirment explicitement que l\u2019\u00e9laboration d\u2019une pistis philosophique, \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00eame fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, doit se comprendre dans le contexte de la controverse pa\u00efenne contre l\u2019\u00ab ath\u00e9isme \u00bb chr\u00e9tien.\r\n\r\nLa traduction comment\u00e9e d\u2019un long extrait du commentaire, en annexe, permettra enfin d\u2019\u00e9tudier de pr\u00e8s les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s sp\u00e9cifiquement n\u00e9oplatoniciens qui guident l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te dans sa lecture d\u2019Aristote, et les enjeux th\u00e9ologiques qui dominent son interpr\u00e9tation du De Caelo et pr\u00e9parent, dans l\u2019exp\u00e9rience de la Foi, une union de \u00ab sympathie \u00bb avec la substance m\u00eame du Ciel et avec le D\u00e9miurge.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude des \u0153uvres philosophiques de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive, principalement des textes n\u00e9oplatoniciens grecs, favoris\u00e9e par un nombre impressionnant d\u2019\u00e9ditions critiques d\u2019importance majeure, a connu ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies un profond renouvellement herm\u00e9neutique, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 une compr\u00e9hension toujours approfondie des doctrines elles-m\u00eames, mais aussi \u00e0 une attention accrue port\u00e9e aux dimensions rh\u00e9toriques de ces textes, comme aux enjeux historiques, politiques, religieux, qui sont ins\u00e9parables du tr\u00e8s complexe syst\u00e8me philosophique en devenir, forg\u00e9 pendant pr\u00e8s de quatre si\u00e8cles, de Porphyre jusqu\u2019aux derniers professeurs d\u2019Alexandrie.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude du n\u00e9oplatonisme ne peut \u00eatre s\u00e9par\u00e9e de l\u2019histoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, politique et religieuse, de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. La th\u00e9ologie savante et la philosophie sont intimement li\u00e9es, soit que la th\u00e9ologie apparaisse comme une \u00ab partie \u00bb de la philosophie, soit que l\u2019ensemble du syst\u00e8me philosophique se d\u00e9signe lui-m\u00eame comme une th\u00e9ologie, ainsi que le montrent les ouvrages majeurs de Proclus, intitul\u00e9s Peri t\u00f4n kata Plat\u014dna Theologias (Th\u00e9ologie Platonicienne) ou Stoicheiosis Theologik\u00ea (\u00c9l\u00e9ments de th\u00e9ologie), qui pr\u00e9sentent selon des modes d\u2019exposition tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rents le d\u00e9ploiement de l\u2019ensemble du syst\u00e8me.\r\n\r\nLa th\u00e9ologie savante s\u2019enrichit et s\u2019accompagne d\u2019autres dimensions relevant du mode de vie m\u00eame des philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens et de leurs pratiques : rituels th\u00e9urgiques, formes diverses de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des dieux (eusebeia), mais aussi religion personnelle ou encore engagement dans la pol\u00e9mique anti-chr\u00e9tienne.\r\n\r\nL\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des textes eux-m\u00eames a \u00e9t\u00e9 renouvel\u00e9e par une attention accrue port\u00e9e aux genres litt\u00e9raires philosophiques et \u00e0 la dimension pragmatique des \u0153uvres. Les analyses de Pierre Hadot, en particulier, nourries d\u2019une r\u00e9flexion sur les \u00ab jeux de langage \u00bb de Wittgenstein, ont contribu\u00e9 \u00e0 renouveler l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens, ceux de Simplicius notamment, envisag\u00e9s comme des \u0153uvres litt\u00e9raires \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re, avec leur r\u00e9gime sp\u00e9cifique de syst\u00e9maticit\u00e9, leurs r\u00e8gles, leurs codes, leurs finalit\u00e9s pragmatiques propres.\r\n\r\nAu-del\u00e0 de l\u2019\u00e9rudition scientifique et de la puissance conceptuelle qui caract\u00e9rise le discours philosophique \u2013 nourri \u00e0 la fois de la tradition p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne et des recherches des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens depuis Plotin et Porphyre \u2013 ces commentaires doivent se comprendre aussi comme des exercices de m\u00e9ditation spirituelle \u00e0 finalit\u00e9 anagogique, que l\u2019auteur pratique \u00e0 la fois pour lui-m\u00eame et pour ses destinataires, auditeurs ou lecteurs. Par leur dimension pragmatique, ils rel\u00e8vent de la vie philosophique (bios) et ne sont plus seulement des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du discours philosophique (logos). [introduction p. 277-279]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ns8nL2OGXc4Xj6K","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":143,"full_name":"Coda, Elisa","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":213,"full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":500,"section_of":360,"pages":"277-363","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":360,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"De l'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive au Moyen \u00c2ge. \u00c9tudes de logique aristot\u00e9licienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes \u00e0 Henri Hugonnard-Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Coda\/Martini2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"La circulation du savoir philosophique \u00e0 travers les traductions du grec au syriaque, du grec \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, du syriaque \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, de l\u2019arabe au latin forme, depuis un si\u00e8cle et plus de recherches savantes, un domaine scientifique \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re. Ce volume r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes des disciplines du domaine voulant rendre hommage \u00e0 un coll\u00e8gue dont l\u2019activit\u00e9 a ouvert une voie, Henri Hugonnard-Roche.\r\nSp\u00e9cialiste de la transmission du grec au syriaque de la logique aristot\u00e9licienne, Henri Hugonnard-Roche a montr\u00e9 par ses recherches la continuit\u00e9 entre la philosophie de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive et la pens\u00e9e des chr\u00e9tiens de langue syriaque d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, des savants musulmans \u00e9crivant en arabe, de l\u2019autre. R\u00e9unis souvent par ce que Werner Jaeger avait autrefois d\u00e9sign\u00e9 comme \u00ab la port\u00e9e \u0153cum\u00e9nique de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 classique \u00bb, des musulmans et des chr\u00e9tiens faisant partie d\u2019un cercle philosophique se penchaient, dans la ville de Bagdad au Xe si\u00e8cle, sur le texte d\u2019Aristote. Leur \u00ab Aristote \u00bb \u00e9tait souvent celui de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive : l\u2019Aristote de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Alexandrie que les intellectuels de la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne avaient d\u00e9j\u00e0 rencontr\u00e9 quelque quatre si\u00e8cles auparavant et qu\u2019ils avaient traduit, en m\u00eame temps que Galien, et parfois comment\u00e9. Des noms presque inconnus comme celui de Sergius de Resh\u2019ayna (mort en 536) commencent dans nos manuels \u00e0 en c\u00f4toyer d\u2019autres bien plus connus, comme celui de Bo\u00e8ce, gr\u00e2ce aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche. Ce volume, par la vari\u00e9t\u00e9 des langues qui s\u2019y entrem\u00ealent, des traditions de pens\u00e9e qu\u2019il fait fusionner, par l\u2019acribie des contributions et le caract\u00e8re novateur des \u00e9ditions de textes et des \u00e9tudes ponctuelles qu\u2019il contient, t\u00e9moigne du rayonnement international du savant auquel il est offert, et de l\u2019effervescence du domaine de recherche auquel il a si grandement contribu\u00e9. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j7haSVMVm5wa9du","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":360,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"\u00c9tudes musulmanes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

‘Simplicius’ (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller), 2014
By: Fleet, Barrie

Title	‘Simplicius’ (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	8
Issue	1
Pages	113-114
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Fleet, Barrie
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

At the outset of Physics 1, Aristotle states that systematic knowledge of natural things and their changing character derives from a group of "principles (arkhai), causes (aitia), or elements (stoikheiai)." In this first book, he does not formally distinguish between these three terms, focusing instead on principles, although later commentators went to great lengths to formalize distinctions among them. Books 1 and 2 of Physics are devoted to seeking out the principles of change within the realm of natural science. Aristotle begins with commonly accepted propositions, “constantly appealing to what is ordinarily said or thought” (W. Charlton, Aristotle’s Physics I, II, Oxford, 1970, xi). Aristotle posits axiomatically that the principles of change in natural bodies are inherent in what comes into being from them, that they do not arise from one another or from external things, but that all things originate from these principles. He seeks to identify the rationally distinguishable factors inherent in the world of physical change. In chapters 1–4, he briefly reviews earlier theorists, such as Parmenides and Melissus, who posited a single principle and denied qualitative change, thereby placing themselves outside the scope of Aristotle’s inquiry. Aristotle concludes that principles must be multiple, either finite or infinite in number. The Neoplatonists, in general, prioritize Aristotle for questions of natural science and Plato for metaphysics. Book 1 of Physics straddles these two domains, and Simplicius, a 6th-century AD commentator, is eager throughout to demonstrate the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Simplicius appeals particularly to Phaedo, Sophist, Philebus, Phaedrus, and Timaeus to suggest that many of Aristotle’s ideas were anticipated by Plato. In chapter 5, Aristotle asserts that everyone agrees the opposites (ta enantia) are principles, though there is considerable variation regarding what these opposites, as primary principles of physical change, are. Aristotle's approach differs from Plato’s Argument from Opposites in Phaedo. He reduces physical change to an underlying matter and, rather than a pair of opposites, considers the presence or absence of an opposite. The absence is redefined as "privation" (sterêsis) of a form, with a possible critique of John Philoponus—though this is contested by Sorabji (Introduction, pp. 4–7). Simplicius provides a detailed analysis of Aristotle’s arguments, distinguishing between primary and secondary principles, substance and contraries, per accidens and per se, and potential and actual—though M. suggests (n. 16) that at least once “Simplicius has no clue.” Simplicius draws parallels between Aristotelian matter and Plato’s Receptacle in Timaeus and the great-and-small in Philebus. He defines matter explicitly at 230,22 and finds congruence between Plato and Aristotle regarding the distinction between the first form, which is genuinely separate, and the natural form immanent in individual compound objects, which perishes with the compound. Simplicius uses Aristotle’s discussion of privation in chapters 7–9 to defend Plato against the charge of giving undue credence to Parmenides' unitary concept of Being. He extensively quotes Sophist to show that Plato recognized but did not emphasize privation, opting instead to discuss the presence or absence of form. Where Aristotle uses privation, Plato prefers the concept of "the other." Simplicius concludes that Plato and Aristotle are not in conflict regarding principles: Plato sought the per se causes of being that are elemental and inherent, while Aristotle sought causes of change, including privation as a per accidens cause. Simplicius frequently cites other commentators, especially Alexander of Aphrodisias, offering a dense and complex analysis that illuminates not only Aristotle’s text but also its reception by a Neoplatonist of the 6th century AD. This edition, translated by four contributors with glossaries by Sebastian Gertz and editorial notes by Richard Sorabji, provides accurate and fluent translations with minimal errors, despite being a collective effort. However, a more detailed note on logos, often left untranslated, would be valuable. Note 252 on p. 155 repeats paragraph 3 of the Introduction (p. 11). Overall, this translation is a significant contribution to Aristotelian studies. [The entire review p. 113-114]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nqkDsZcyl8kNw0V

{"_index":"sire","_id":"594","_score":null,"_source":{"id":594,"authors_free":[{"id":845,"entry_id":594,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u2018Simplicius\u2019 (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)","main_title":{"title":"\u2018Simplicius\u2019 (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)"},"abstract":"At the outset of Physics 1, Aristotle states that systematic knowledge of natural things and their changing character derives from a group of \"principles (arkhai), causes (aitia), or elements (stoikheiai).\" In this first book, he does not formally distinguish between these three terms, focusing instead on principles, although later commentators went to great lengths to formalize distinctions among them. Books 1 and 2 of Physics are devoted to seeking out the principles of change within the realm of natural science. Aristotle begins with commonly accepted propositions, \u201cconstantly appealing to what is ordinarily said or thought\u201d (W. Charlton, Aristotle\u2019s Physics I, II, Oxford, 1970, xi).\r\n\r\nAristotle posits axiomatically that the principles of change in natural bodies are inherent in what comes into being from them, that they do not arise from one another or from external things, but that all things originate from these principles. He seeks to identify the rationally distinguishable factors inherent in the world of physical change. In chapters 1\u20134, he briefly reviews earlier theorists, such as Parmenides and Melissus, who posited a single principle and denied qualitative change, thereby placing themselves outside the scope of Aristotle\u2019s inquiry. Aristotle concludes that principles must be multiple, either finite or infinite in number.\r\n\r\nThe Neoplatonists, in general, prioritize Aristotle for questions of natural science and Plato for metaphysics. Book 1 of Physics straddles these two domains, and Simplicius, a 6th-century AD commentator, is eager throughout to demonstrate the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Simplicius appeals particularly to Phaedo, Sophist, Philebus, Phaedrus, and Timaeus to suggest that many of Aristotle\u2019s ideas were anticipated by Plato.\r\n\r\nIn chapter 5, Aristotle asserts that everyone agrees the opposites (ta enantia) are principles, though there is considerable variation regarding what these opposites, as primary principles of physical change, are. Aristotle's approach differs from Plato\u2019s Argument from Opposites in Phaedo. He reduces physical change to an underlying matter and, rather than a pair of opposites, considers the presence or absence of an opposite. The absence is redefined as \"privation\" (ster\u00easis) of a form, with a possible critique of John Philoponus\u2014though this is contested by Sorabji (Introduction, pp. 4\u20137). Simplicius provides a detailed analysis of Aristotle\u2019s arguments, distinguishing between primary and secondary principles, substance and contraries, per accidens and per se, and potential and actual\u2014though M. suggests (n. 16) that at least once \u201cSimplicius has no clue.\u201d\r\n\r\nSimplicius draws parallels between Aristotelian matter and Plato\u2019s Receptacle in Timaeus and the great-and-small in Philebus. He defines matter explicitly at 230,22 and finds congruence between Plato and Aristotle regarding the distinction between the first form, which is genuinely separate, and the natural form immanent in individual compound objects, which perishes with the compound.\r\n\r\nSimplicius uses Aristotle\u2019s discussion of privation in chapters 7\u20139 to defend Plato against the charge of giving undue credence to Parmenides' unitary concept of Being. He extensively quotes Sophist to show that Plato recognized but did not emphasize privation, opting instead to discuss the presence or absence of form. Where Aristotle uses privation, Plato prefers the concept of \"the other.\" Simplicius concludes that Plato and Aristotle are not in conflict regarding principles: Plato sought the per se causes of being that are elemental and inherent, while Aristotle sought causes of change, including privation as a per accidens cause.\r\n\r\nSimplicius frequently cites other commentators, especially Alexander of Aphrodisias, offering a dense and complex analysis that illuminates not only Aristotle\u2019s text but also its reception by a Neoplatonist of the 6th century AD.\r\n\r\nThis edition, translated by four contributors with glossaries by Sebastian Gertz and editorial notes by Richard Sorabji, provides accurate and fluent translations with minimal errors, despite being a collective effort. However, a more detailed note on logos, often left untranslated, would be valuable. Note 252 on p. 155 repeats paragraph 3 of the Introduction (p. 11). Overall, this translation is a significant contribution to Aristotelian studies. [The entire review p. 113-114]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqkDsZcyl8kNw0V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":594,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"8","issue":"1","pages":"113-114"}},"sort":[2014]}

Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes, 2014
By: Sotiria Triantari

Title	Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter
Volume	17
Issue	1
Pages	85-98
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sotiria Triantari
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Was the Byzantine thinker Nicephorus Blemmydes directly influenced in his views about human “proairesis” by the Stoic Epictetus or did he take over his views from the Neoplatonic Simplicius? After exploring Blemmydes’ reception of Epictetus, one can say that Blemmydes drew elements in a brief treatise under the title “De virtute et ascesi” from the mainly Neoplatonic Simplicius, who commented on the handbook by the Stoic Epictetus. Blemmydes, following Simplicius identifies “φ’ μν” with “aftexousion” and he designates “proairesis” as an activity, which emanates from “aftexousion”. Blemmydes shows the moral power of “proairesis” as a transforming factor of human existence and the mediatory factor to the dialectical relation between man and God. For the completion of the study, the following sources have been used: Blemmydes’ De virtute et ascesi, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Neoplatonic Simplicius’ commentaries on the Handbook. I specifically focus on the views of Aristotle, Epictetus, and Neoplatonic Simplicius about “proairesis” and compare the views of Blemmydes to Simplicius’ ideas. I conclude that Blemmydes drew ideas from Simplicius, with regard to human “proairesis” and in the context of the practising and cultivating virtues in everyday life. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/L5aG4m1stEAka7L

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1596","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1596,"authors_free":[{"id":2796,"entry_id":1596,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sotiria Triantari","free_first_name":"Sotiria","free_last_name":"Triantari","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes","main_title":{"title":"Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes"},"abstract":"Was the Byzantine thinker Nicephorus Blemmydes directly influenced in his views about human \u201cproairesis\u201d by the Stoic Epictetus or did he take over his views from the Neoplatonic Simplicius? After exploring Blemmydes\u2019 reception of Epictetus, one can say that Blemmydes drew elements in a brief treatise under the title \u201cDe virtute et ascesi\u201d from the mainly Neoplatonic Simplicius, who commented on the handbook by the Stoic Epictetus. Blemmydes, following Simplicius identifies \u201c\u03c6\u2019 \u03bc\u03bd\u201d with \u201caftexousion\u201d and he designates \u201cproairesis\u201d as an activity, which emanates from \u201caftexousion\u201d. Blemmydes shows the moral power of \u201cproairesis\u201d as a transforming factor of human existence and the mediatory factor to the dialectical relation between man and God. For the completion of the study, the following sources have been used: Blemmydes\u2019 De virtute et ascesi, Epictetus\u2019 Handbook, and Neoplatonic Simplicius\u2019 commentaries on the Handbook. I specifically focus on the views of Aristotle, Epictetus, and Neoplatonic Simplicius about \u201cproairesis\u201d and compare the views of Blemmydes to Simplicius\u2019 ideas. I conclude that Blemmydes drew ideas from Simplicius, with regard to human \u201cproairesis\u201d and in the context of the practising and cultivating virtues in everyday life. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/L5aG4m1stEAka7L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1596,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","volume":"17","issue":"1","pages":"85-98"}},"sort":[2014]}

Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco, 2014
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Hoffmann, Philippe

Title	Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2014
Journal	Revue des Études Grecques
Volume	127
Issue	1
Pages	119-175
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The digression labelled “Corollarium de loco” by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle’s definition of ‘place’ (topos) as “the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body” (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being ‘somewhere’, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s definition with a new definition of place as a “gathering (or uniting) measure” (metron sunagôgon), which is one of the four “measures” (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible entities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our understanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of Nature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina” (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the German scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian collection. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1321,"authors_free":[{"id":1955,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2378,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"The digression labelled \u201cCorollarium de loco\u201d by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u2018place\u2019 (topos) as \u201cthe first unmoved boundary \r\nof the surrounding body\u201d (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being \u2018somewhere\u2019, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle\u2019s definition with a new definition of place as a \u201cgathering (or uniting) measure\u201d (metron sunag\u00f4gon), which is one of the four \u201cmeasures\u201d (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible \r\nentities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under\u00adstanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of \r\nNature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection \u201cCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina\u201d (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy \r\nof Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger\u00adman scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian \r\ncollection. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"127","issue":"1","pages":"119-175"}},"sort":[2014]}

Simplicius et l'Infini, 2014
By: Soulier, Philippe

Title	Simplicius et l'Infini
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2014
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Les Belles Lettres
Series	Anagoge
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Soulier, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Comment penser la presence de l'infini dans la phenomenalite du monde fini? Comment articuler l'affirmation de la finitude du monde et celle de l'infinie puissance de son principe, en dehors de toute cosmogonie creationniste? Redige a la fin de l'Antiquite, le Commentaire a la Physique d'Aristote du au philosophe neoplatonicien Simplicius offre une reponse a ces questions. Il montre comment l'analyse du monde fini, tel qu'il est donne dans l'experience phenomenale, permet d'y decouvrir l'inscription d'une puissance d'un autre ordre. Il fait meme de la reconnaissance de cette puissance une condition d'acces a l'intelligibilite du devenir. Le present ouvrage propose une mise en perspective de l'histoire du probleme de l'infini (apeiron) dans la philosophie grecque antique, a travers l'etude de la mutation du sens et de la valeur accordes a ce concept dans le Commentaire de Simplicius (In Physicam, III, 4-8). Toutefois, ce texte n'est pas simplement situe comme un document d'etape. Certes, on y dechiffre le symptome d'un puissant mouvement historique de transition spirituelle: a partir d'un illimite negativement connote depuis le tournant parmenidien, celle-ci debouchera, par le relais de la philosophie medievale, sur l'idee moderne d'une infinite positive. Mais le passage de l'illimite a l'infini designe encore un mouvement anagogique interne a la demarche meme de l'exegese de Simplicius. De fait, la critique aristotelicienne du faux infini engendre par la representation y est interpretee comme une preparation a la celebration d'une infinite expressive de la puissance de l'Un, laquelle deploie sa fecondite depuis l'ordre intelligible jusqu'au devenir sublunaire. Appuyee sur des traductions inedites de textes de Simplicius, mais aussi de Jamblique, de Syrianus et de Proclus, cette enquete excede le seul spectre doctrinal du platonisme depuis Plotin. Outre le destin de pensees presocratiques comme celles d'Anaxagore et des Pythagoriciens, elle interroge egalement le statut problematique de la doctrine orale attribuee a Platon, le moyen platonisme, le pythagorisme hellenistique - et au premier chef la philosophie aristotelicienne elle-meme. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JrD8HJm6kzr3RyC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1424","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1424,"authors_free":[{"id":2235,"entry_id":1424,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":408,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Soulier, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Soulier","norm_person":{"id":408,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Soulier","full_name":"Soulier, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059727145","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et l'Infini","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et l'Infini"},"abstract":"Comment penser la presence de l'infini dans la phenomenalite du monde fini? Comment articuler l'affirmation de la finitude du monde et celle de l'infinie puissance de son principe, en dehors de toute cosmogonie creationniste? Redige a la fin de l'Antiquite, le Commentaire a la Physique d'Aristote du au philosophe neoplatonicien Simplicius offre une reponse a ces questions. Il montre comment l'analyse du monde fini, tel qu'il est donne dans l'experience phenomenale, permet d'y decouvrir l'inscription d'une puissance d'un autre ordre. Il fait meme de la reconnaissance de cette puissance une condition d'acces a l'intelligibilite du devenir. Le present ouvrage propose une mise en perspective de l'histoire du probleme de l'infini (apeiron) dans la philosophie grecque antique, a travers l'etude de la mutation du sens et de la valeur accordes a ce concept dans le Commentaire de Simplicius (In Physicam, III, 4-8). Toutefois, ce texte n'est pas simplement situe comme un document d'etape. Certes, on y dechiffre le symptome d'un puissant mouvement historique de transition spirituelle: a partir d'un illimite negativement connote depuis le tournant parmenidien, celle-ci debouchera, par le relais de la philosophie medievale, sur l'idee moderne d'une infinite positive. Mais le passage de l'illimite a l'infini designe encore un mouvement anagogique interne a la demarche meme de l'exegese de Simplicius. De fait, la critique aristotelicienne du faux infini engendre par la representation y est interpretee comme une preparation a la celebration d'une infinite expressive de la puissance de l'Un, laquelle deploie sa fecondite depuis l'ordre intelligible jusqu'au devenir sublunaire. Appuyee sur des traductions inedites de textes de Simplicius, mais aussi de Jamblique, de Syrianus et de Proclus, cette enquete excede le seul spectre doctrinal du platonisme depuis Plotin. Outre le destin de pensees presocratiques comme celles d'Anaxagore et des Pythagoriciens, elle interroge egalement le statut problematique de la doctrine orale attribuee a Platon, le moyen platonisme, le pythagorisme hellenistique - et au premier chef la philosophie aristotelicienne elle-meme. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JrD8HJm6kzr3RyC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":408,"full_name":"Soulier, Philippe","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1424,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":" Anagoge","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

The text of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts, 2014
By: Tarán, Leonardo

Title	The text of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Revue d’histoire des textes
Volume	9
Pages	351-358
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper tries to establish that supralinear omicron is not, as most elementary introductions to Greek paleography have it, a simple abbreviation for the ending omicron-sigma. Rather, it was originally a symbol for suspension that later medieval scribes used also for other subordinated purposes which are impossible to classify. Some examples will be given in what follows. For a long time this interpretation had seemed so obvious to me that during a 1985 colloquium on Simplicius in Paris, it surprised me that some members of the audience objected that supralinear omicron is simply an abbreviation for omicron-sigma. As this occurred during my discussion of a passage of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, and as several of my examples come from that work, it is convenient to give a list of the manuscripts used by Diels and also of additional prim ary witnesses either rejected by, or not known to him. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/euNEGjD514bsBaT

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1456","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1456,"authors_free":[{"id":2476,"entry_id":1456,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The text of Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts","main_title":{"title":"The text of Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts"},"abstract":"This paper tries to establish that supralinear omicron is not, as most elementary introductions to Greek paleography have it, a simple abbreviation for the ending omicron-sigma. Rather, it was originally a symbol for suspension that later medieval scribes used also for other subordinated purposes which are impossible to classify. Some examples will be given in what follows. For a long time this interpretation had seemed so obvious to me that during a 1985 colloquium on Simplicius in Paris, it surprised me that some members of the audience objected that supralinear omicron is simply an abbreviation for omicron-sigma. As this occurred during my discussion of a passage of Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, and as several of my examples come from that work, it is convenient to give a list of the manuscripts used by Diels and also of additional prim ary witnesses either rejected by, or not known to him. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/euNEGjD514bsBaT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1456,"pubplace":"","publisher":"","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1456,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes ","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"351-358 "}},"sort":[2014]}

Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories, 2014
By: Militello, Chiara

Title	Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA
Volume	1
Issue	5
Pages	91-117
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Militello, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David (Elias) are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle’s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)’s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius’, Simplicius’ and Olympiodorus’ doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle’s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David (Elias) do not. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/62qOZqwQ9rtCf7S

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1485","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1485,"authors_free":[{"id":2570,"entry_id":1485,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":2,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Militello, Chiara","free_first_name":"Chiara","free_last_name":"Militello","norm_person":{"id":2,"first_name":"Chiara ","last_name":"Militello ","full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666461X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David (Elias) are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle\u2019s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)\u2019s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius\u2019, Simplicius\u2019 and Olympiodorus\u2019 doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle\u2019s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David (Elias) do not. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/62qOZqwQ9rtCf7S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":2,"full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1485,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"PEITHO \/ EXAMINA ANTIQUA","volume":"1","issue":"5","pages":"91-117"}},"sort":[2014]}

Simplicius on Categories 1a16–17 and 1b25–27: An Examination of the Interests of Ancient and Modern Commentary on the Categories, 2014
By: Almeida, Joseph

Title	Simplicius on Categories 1a16–17 and 1b25–27: An Examination of the Interests of Ancient and Modern Commentary on the Categories
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume	4
Issue	2
Pages	73-99
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Almeida, Joseph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

We may gather these observations into several points. First, Simplicius’s commentary on the Categories shows, not surprisingly, the influence of the great Neoplatonic spiritual odyssey of return to first principles. The final prayer offered at the termination of his commentary is a stunning testimony to the power which this spiritual program exerted on the ancient commentators: "I stop my discourse, invoking the Guardians of the Logoi to grant me a more accurate understanding of these matters and to favor me with this understanding as a viaticum toward higher contemplations and to provide me leisure from the distractions of life." For Simplicius, commentary on Aristotle could never be wholly separated from this overarching spiritual purpose. In at least one of the passages considered above, this influence manifested itself in an attempt to elucidate Aristotle’s text as the lesser mysteries on route to the higher. As this program and its consequences are central to the business of Neoplatonic commentary on the Categories, so it is, in its central impetus, irrelevant to the interests of the modern program of solving the problem of the Categories. Second, Simplicius was a happy heir of a long tradition, part of which conditioned commentators to see the Categories as a text for beginners in philosophy. Embracing this teaching, Simplicius does not hesitate to deflect certain difficulties presented by the text with appeal to the elementary nature of the Categories, content to leave a real solution to more advanced speculations elsewhere. When modern interest is focused on just such a problem, such a treatment is of little value. Third, the same tradition obligates Simplicius to harmonize Aristotle with Plato. At least in the example considered above, the reconciliation can involve certain abstruse points of Neoplatonic philosophy. Such commentary is no doubt of great value to students of Neoplatonism but will generally miss the mark set by the interests of modern inquiry. These three points appear relatively secure and of universal application to the body of ancient commentary on the Categories. There is, however, a fourth point, to be stated cautiously because of the limited data examined. When Simplicius spoke directly to the passages in question in Cat. 1a16–17 and 1b25–27, he did not seem to appreciate the issues which interested modern readers of the Categories—namely, that the doctrine of simple expressions presents a philosophical theory in need of expansion and illumination, a problem to be solved in relation to a theory of categories in general rather than a solution to be applied to questions concerning the identity and nature of the Aristotelian categories in particular. This is not to say that a modern reader will never find anywhere in Simplicius a discussion corresponding to his interest, but that in all likelihood it would be serendipitous and peripheral to Simplicius’s own primary interest in the Categories. These observations warrant the conclusion that there is indeed a separation between the interests of the ancient and modern commentators on the Categories. In its strong form, the conclusion is that the separation is absolute. This is in accord with Praechter’s position in his classic review of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (i.e., that the commentaries will prove to be essentially of historic value): “[They will be] invaluable for the history of the Greek language, for the lexicon as well as for the grammar”; “[They will be invaluable] for understanding how ancient philosophy was able to fulfill the vast cultural mission which befell it in antiquity as sovereign in the realm of Weltanschauung, and in the Middle Ages as the ‘handmaiden of theology.’” Even Sorabji, who seems to regard the independent philosophical value of the commentaries more highly than Praechter, recommends them to students of Aristotle with a note of caution: “The distorting Neoplatonist context... does not prevent the commentaries from being incomparable guides to Aristotle. The commentators... have minutely detailed knowledge of the entire Aristotelian corpus... Moreover, commentators are enjoined neither to accept nor to reject what Aristotle says too readily, but to consider it in depth and without partiality. The commentaries draw one’s attention to hundreds of phrases, sentences, and ideas in Aristotle which one could easily have passed over... The scholar who makes the right allowance for the distorting context will learn far more about Aristotle than he would on his own.” Although this is a more positive view of the substantive content of the commentaries, the illumination of sentences and ideas still does not address the needs of the kind of modern inquiry exemplified in our discussion. Because the conclusion is drawn from limited data—namely, a close reading of about sixty pages of the Berlin text of Simplicius on the Categories—it must remain tentative and provisional. However, truth to be told, the tremendous effort involved in reading even cursorily just one of the ancient commentaries on the Categories, let alone with an eye to the intersection between Neoplatonic and modern interest, may leave the matter open for quite some time. [conclusion p. 97-99]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OzmApALBY8ZdgnX

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1499","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1499,"authors_free":[{"id":2602,"entry_id":1499,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":557,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Almeida, Joseph","free_first_name":"Joseph","free_last_name":"Almeida","norm_person":{"id":557,"first_name":"Joseph","last_name":"Almeida","full_name":"Almeida, Joseph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Categories 1a16\u201317 and 1b25\u201327: An Examination of the Interests of Ancient and Modern Commentary on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Categories 1a16\u201317 and 1b25\u201327: An Examination of the Interests of Ancient and Modern Commentary on the Categories"},"abstract":"We may gather these observations into several points.\r\n\r\nFirst, Simplicius\u2019s commentary on the Categories shows, not surprisingly, the influence of the great Neoplatonic spiritual odyssey of return to first principles. The final prayer offered at the termination of his commentary is a stunning testimony to the power which this spiritual program exerted on the ancient commentators:\r\n\r\n \"I stop my discourse, invoking the Guardians of the Logoi to grant me a more accurate understanding of these matters and to favor me with this understanding as a viaticum toward higher contemplations and to provide me leisure from the distractions of life.\"\r\n\r\nFor Simplicius, commentary on Aristotle could never be wholly separated from this overarching spiritual purpose. In at least one of the passages considered above, this influence manifested itself in an attempt to elucidate Aristotle\u2019s text as the lesser mysteries on route to the higher. As this program and its consequences are central to the business of Neoplatonic commentary on the Categories, so it is, in its central impetus, irrelevant to the interests of the modern program of solving the problem of the Categories.\r\n\r\nSecond, Simplicius was a happy heir of a long tradition, part of which conditioned commentators to see the Categories as a text for beginners in philosophy. Embracing this teaching, Simplicius does not hesitate to deflect certain difficulties presented by the text with appeal to the elementary nature of the Categories, content to leave a real solution to more advanced speculations elsewhere. When modern interest is focused on just such a problem, such a treatment is of little value.\r\n\r\nThird, the same tradition obligates Simplicius to harmonize Aristotle with Plato. At least in the example considered above, the reconciliation can involve certain abstruse points of Neoplatonic philosophy. Such commentary is no doubt of great value to students of Neoplatonism but will generally miss the mark set by the interests of modern inquiry.\r\n\r\nThese three points appear relatively secure and of universal application to the body of ancient commentary on the Categories. There is, however, a fourth point, to be stated cautiously because of the limited data examined. When Simplicius spoke directly to the passages in question in Cat. 1a16\u201317 and 1b25\u201327, he did not seem to appreciate the issues which interested modern readers of the Categories\u2014namely, that the doctrine of simple expressions presents a philosophical theory in need of expansion and illumination, a problem to be solved in relation to a theory of categories in general rather than a solution to be applied to questions concerning the identity and nature of the Aristotelian categories in particular.\r\n\r\nThis is not to say that a modern reader will never find anywhere in Simplicius a discussion corresponding to his interest, but that in all likelihood it would be serendipitous and peripheral to Simplicius\u2019s own primary interest in the Categories.\r\n\r\nThese observations warrant the conclusion that there is indeed a separation between the interests of the ancient and modern commentators on the Categories. In its strong form, the conclusion is that the separation is absolute. This is in accord with Praechter\u2019s position in his classic review of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (i.e., that the commentaries will prove to be essentially of historic value):\r\n\r\n \u201c[They will be] invaluable for the history of the Greek language, for the lexicon as well as for the grammar\u201d;\r\n \u201c[They will be invaluable] for understanding how ancient philosophy was able to fulfill the vast cultural mission which befell it in antiquity as sovereign in the realm of Weltanschauung, and in the Middle Ages as the \u2018handmaiden of theology.\u2019\u201d\r\n\r\nEven Sorabji, who seems to regard the independent philosophical value of the commentaries more highly than Praechter, recommends them to students of Aristotle with a note of caution:\r\n\r\n \u201cThe distorting Neoplatonist context... does not prevent the commentaries from being incomparable guides to Aristotle. The commentators... have minutely detailed knowledge of the entire Aristotelian corpus... Moreover, commentators are enjoined neither to accept nor to reject what Aristotle says too readily, but to consider it in depth and without partiality. The commentaries draw one\u2019s attention to hundreds of phrases, sentences, and ideas in Aristotle which one could easily have passed over... The scholar who makes the right allowance for the distorting context will learn far more about Aristotle than he would on his own.\u201d\r\n\r\nAlthough this is a more positive view of the substantive content of the commentaries, the illumination of sentences and ideas still does not address the needs of the kind of modern inquiry exemplified in our discussion.\r\n\r\nBecause the conclusion is drawn from limited data\u2014namely, a close reading of about sixty pages of the Berlin text of Simplicius on the Categories\u2014it must remain tentative and provisional. However, truth to be told, the tremendous effort involved in reading even cursorily just one of the ancient commentaries on the Categories, let alone with an eye to the intersection between Neoplatonic and modern interest, may leave the matter open for quite some time.\r\n[conclusion p. 97-99]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OzmApALBY8ZdgnX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":557,"full_name":"Almeida, Joseph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1499,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"4","issue":"2","pages":"73-99"}},"sort":[2014]}

On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius, 2014
By: Tuominen, Miira, Silva, José Filipe (Ed.)

Title	On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy
Pages	55-78
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tuominen, Miira
Editor(s)	Silva, José Filipe
Translator(s)

Ancient and late ancient theories of perception are often described by a generalisation according to which Aristotle held a passive theory whereas Plato, the Platonists and the Neoplatonists supposed perception to be something active. I shall argue that, despite this general difference, there are important points of convergence in the theories of Aristotle and his Neoplatonic commentators. First, the notion of activity is important for Aristotle’s theory as well. Perception not only is an activity (energeia) for Aristotle. It is a perfect activity, the perfection of which is the activity itself and is thus not dependent on an external product. Further, the reception of forms without matter is by no means an exhaustive description of perceptual cognition in Aristotle. The sensitive soul is also capable of memory, imagination, and non-universal generalisation Aristotle calls ‘experience’. Human beings who have reason also make perceptual judgments that, however, are not identified with perceptions in Aristotle’s theory. While the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle’s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle’s core assumptions. By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments. However, I argue that they still retained the assumption that there also is sensation of external objects but ascribed this to the sense organism rather than the sensitive soul. The point is rather clear in Pseudo-Simplicius and I also argue that it is likely that Philoponus maintained a similar view. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy , 2014
By: Silva, José Filipe (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1506","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1506,"authors_free":[{"id":2616,"entry_id":1506,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":434,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tuominen, Miira","free_first_name":"Miira","free_last_name":"Tuominen","norm_person":{"id":434,"first_name":"Miira","last_name":"Tuominen","full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2617,"entry_id":1506,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":559,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_last_name":"Silva","norm_person":{"id":559,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","last_name":"Silva","full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050222717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius"},"abstract":"Ancient and late ancient theories of perception are often described by a generalisation according to which Aristotle held a passive theory whereas Plato, the Platonists and the Neoplatonists supposed perception to be something active. I shall argue that, despite this general difference, there are important points of convergence in the theories of Aristotle and his Neoplatonic commentators. First, the notion of activity is important for Aristotle\u2019s theory as well. Perception not only is an activity (energeia) for Aristotle. It is a perfect activity, the perfection of which is the activity itself and is thus not dependent on an external product. Further, the reception of forms without matter is by no means an exhaustive description of perceptual cognition in Aristotle. The sensitive soul is also capable of memory, imagination, and non-universal generalisation Aristotle calls \u2018experience\u2019. Human beings who have reason also make perceptual judgments that, however, are not identified with perceptions in Aristotle\u2019s theory.\r\n\r\nWhile the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle\u2019s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle\u2019s core assumptions. By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments. However, I argue that they still retained the assumption that there also is sensation of external objects but ascribed this to the sense organism rather than the sensitive soul. The point is rather clear in Pseudo-Simplicius and I also argue that it is likely that Philoponus maintained a similar view. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zXcOOevnjv8RyOa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":434,"full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":559,"full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1506,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Springer","series":"Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":1506,"section_of":1507,"pages":"55-78","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1507,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The aim of the present work is to show the roots of the conception of perception as an active process, tracing the history of its development from Plato to modern philosophy. The contributors inquire into what activity is taken to mean in different theories, challenging traditional historical accounts of perception that stress the passivity of percipients in coming to know the external world. Special attention is paid to the psychological and physiological mechanisms of perception, rational and non-rational perception and the role of awareness in the perceptual process. Perception has often been conceived as a process in which the passive aspects - such as the reception of sensory stimuli - were stressed and the active ones overlooked. However, during recent decades research in cognitive science and philosophy of mind has emphasized the activity of the subject in the process of sense perception, often associating this activity to the notions of attention and intentionality. Although it is recognized that there are ancient roots to the view that perception is fundamentally active, the history remains largely unexplored. The book is directed to all those interested in contemporary debates in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology who would like to become acquainted with the historical background of active perception, but for historical reliability the aim is to make no compromises. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QMx2DVooYGq5eIs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1507,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Springer","series":"Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Title	Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	Springer
Series	Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind
Volume	14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Silva, José Filipe
Translator(s)

The aim of the present work is to show the roots of the conception of perception as an active process, tracing the history of its development from Plato to modern philosophy. The contributors inquire into what activity is taken to mean in different theories, challenging traditional historical accounts of perception that stress the passivity of percipients in coming to know the external world. Special attention is paid to the psychological and physiological mechanisms of perception, rational and non-rational perception and the role of awareness in the perceptual process. Perception has often been conceived as a process in which the passive aspects - such as the reception of sensory stimuli - were stressed and the active ones overlooked. However, during recent decades research in cognitive science and philosophy of mind has emphasized the activity of the subject in the process of sense perception, often associating this activity to the notions of attention and intentionality. Although it is recognized that there are ancient roots to the view that perception is fundamentally active, the history remains largely unexplored. The book is directed to all those interested in contemporary debates in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology who would like to become acquainted with the historical background of active perception, but for historical reliability the aim is to make no compromises. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism, 2014
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1507","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1507,"authors_free":[{"id":2618,"entry_id":1507,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":559,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_last_name":"Filipe","norm_person":{"id":559,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","last_name":"Silva","full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050222717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy ","main_title":{"title":"Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy "},"abstract":"The aim of the present work is to show the roots of the conception of perception as an active process, tracing the history of its development from Plato to modern philosophy. The contributors inquire into what activity is taken to mean in different theories, challenging traditional historical accounts of perception that stress the passivity of percipients in coming to know the external world. Special attention is paid to the psychological and physiological mechanisms of perception, rational and non-rational perception and the role of awareness in the perceptual process. Perception has often been conceived as a process in which the passive aspects - such as the reception of sensory stimuli - were stressed and the active ones overlooked. However, during recent decades research in cognitive science and philosophy of mind has emphasized the activity of the subject in the process of sense perception, often associating this activity to the notions of attention and intentionality. Although it is recognized that there are ancient roots to the view that perception is fundamentally active, the history remains largely unexplored. The book is directed to all those interested in contemporary debates in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology who would like to become acquainted with the historical background of active perception, but for historical reliability the aim is to make no compromises. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zXcOOevnjv8RyOa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":559,"full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1507,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Springer","series":"Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Title	The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume	2
Issue	4
Pages	7-23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

All students of the history of philosophy are apt to be seduced by linearity. What I mean is this. Naturally, we read the texts of the history of philosophy in the chronological order in which they were written. So, for example, we read Aristotle after we read Plato. And we read the supposedly later works of Plato after the earlier ones. Perfectly reasonable. But in pursuing the task of trying to figure out the meaning of what we have read, we tend to seek out or suppose the “influence” of the earlier philosopher on the later or the “development” of the philosopher’s views. The employment of these two seemingly innocuous and certainly ubiquitous terms is in fact rarely edifying. An easy means of seeing why this is so is to ask what sort of Aristotelian cause influence and development are supposed to indicate. Since we are talking about temporal succession, presumably we would have in mind efficient or moving causes. But it only requires a moment’s reflection to realize that the views of one philosopher never stand in relation to the views of another as efficient cause to effect. Thus, for example, it is not because Plato believed that nominalism is false that Aristotle believed that nominalism is false, even if it is indeed the case that Aristotle accepted Platonic arguments to this effect. If, however, we loosen the connection between Plato and Aristotle and agree that the views of the former did not cause the views of the latter, what is the influence supposed to amount to? Indeed, why claim that Aristotle is influenced by Plato, with whom he happened to agree on many issues, and not by, say, Democritus, with whom he happened to disagree? Surely, one can be inspired to embrace a position that is exactly the opposite of that which one hears from another. Consider “development.” The perfectly anodyne sense of this term—namely, that according to which the sequence of writings in an author indicates the progress or course of his thought—is quite useless. But as soon as you try to gin up this weak sense of development into something more portentous, you get into serious trouble. If, for example, you say that Plato’s thought developed in the sense that his later dialogues represent an advancement in, or even a change from, his earlier thought—apart from cases of outright contradiction of which there are few or none—you have to specify what the development is a development of; that is, to use Aristotelian terminology once again, what is the underlying substrate for the development? But this underlying substrate will be the locus of continuity throughout the putative development; continuity that may be far more important than any change. I am not suggesting that Plato or any other philosopher never changed his mind. I am suggesting that the changes cannot ever be viewed uncritically as going from false to true or wrong to right. Consider someone who believes that the high point of Plato’s thinking occurred in the early or middle dialogues. Someone like this would not consider the middle or late dialogues developments in any sense but the anodyne one mentioned above. Some scholars, looking at the identical texts, believe that Aristotle developed from a Platonist to something like an anti-Platonist, while others believe that his anti-Platonism was only a “phase” after which he developed into a Platonist once again. None of this is very helpful. The reason I bring it up is that the Platonists of late antiquity who introduced the philosophical curriculum wherein the commentaries played such an important role were mostly impervious to the siren song of linearity. As we know from the accounts of the philosophical curriculum, perhaps introduced by Iamblichus or Porphyry in the late third century, students were obliged to study Aristotle before studying Plato. Studying Aristotle, or at least some of the works of Aristotle, was thought to be the most suitable preparation for studying Plato. The reason for this is quite simple: the Platonists were aiming at truth rather than what we might like to think of as an “objective and unbiased” account of the “development” of the history of philosophy. But we still should want to ask why the study of Aristotle was supposed to be conducive to understanding the truth as it is revealed in Plato and articulated by the man whom Proclus called “the exegete of the Platonic revelation,” namely, Plotinus. Simplicius provides a preliminary answer to this question when he says in his Physics commentary that Aristotle was authoritative for the sensible world as Plato was for the intelligible world. Beginning the study of philosophy “in” the sensible world, in accord with Aristotle’s remark in Physics—that we start with things more intelligible to us and move to things more intelligible by nature—puts the student in a better position to appreciate the more difficult insights found in the two works that comprise the culmination of philosophical study: namely, Timaeus and Parmenides. Let us be quite specific. The study of Categories is supposed to assist the student in preparing for the study of the intelligible world. Initially, this seems far-fetched. Indeed, it is not uncommon for contemporary Aristotle scholars to take Categories as in a way programmatic for an anti-Platonic Aristotelian philosophy, the focus of which is the individual sensible substance. So, on this showing, Iamblichus was naive to think that he was molding disciples of Platonism by having the students read Categories even before they encountered a dialogue of Plato. As I have argued elsewhere, Iamblichus and Simplicius and many other prominent Platonists of late antiquity believed that Aristotle’s philosophy was in harmony with Platonism. The way I characterized harmony was to argue that Aristotle’s philosophy stood to Platonism analogous to the way that Newtonian mechanics stood to quantum mechanics. I was and am not altogether happy with letting my argument rest on an analogy in part because, in trying to explore further the details of harmony, one soon runs up against the limitations of the analogy. Instead, I would like to pursue a different approach here. I would like to argue that what underlies the claims of harmony is a set of shared principles; shared not only by self-proclaimed Platonists and by Aristotle, but by virtually all philosophers from at least 200 CE until perhaps the beginning of the seventeenth century, with only a few notable exceptions. It will become clear as I proceed why I have cast my net so widely. And I hope it will also become clear why the Aristotelian commentary tradition remains a critical component in the larger Platonic project. [introduction p. 7-9]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fH9zEC1gXGTy5tA

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1510,"authors_free":[{"id":2623,"entry_id":1510,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism"},"abstract":"All students of the history of philosophy are apt to be seduced by linearity. What I mean is this. Naturally, we read the texts of the history of philosophy in the chronological order in which they were written. So, for example, we read Aristotle after we read Plato. And we read the supposedly later works of Plato after the earlier ones. Perfectly reasonable. But in pursuing the task of trying to figure out the meaning of what we have read, we tend to seek out or suppose the \u201cinfluence\u201d of the earlier philosopher on the later or the \u201cdevelopment\u201d of the philosopher\u2019s views.\r\n\r\nThe employment of these two seemingly innocuous and certainly ubiquitous terms is in fact rarely edifying. An easy means of seeing why this is so is to ask what sort of Aristotelian cause influence and development are supposed to indicate. Since we are talking about temporal succession, presumably we would have in mind efficient or moving causes. But it only requires a moment\u2019s reflection to realize that the views of one philosopher never stand in relation to the views of another as efficient cause to effect.\r\n\r\nThus, for example, it is not because Plato believed that nominalism is false that Aristotle believed that nominalism is false, even if it is indeed the case that Aristotle accepted Platonic arguments to this effect. If, however, we loosen the connection between Plato and Aristotle and agree that the views of the former did not cause the views of the latter, what is the influence supposed to amount to? Indeed, why claim that Aristotle is influenced by Plato, with whom he happened to agree on many issues, and not by, say, Democritus, with whom he happened to disagree? Surely, one can be inspired to embrace a position that is exactly the opposite of that which one hears from another.\r\n\r\nConsider \u201cdevelopment.\u201d The perfectly anodyne sense of this term\u2014namely, that according to which the sequence of writings in an author indicates the progress or course of his thought\u2014is quite useless. But as soon as you try to gin up this weak sense of development into something more portentous, you get into serious trouble. If, for example, you say that Plato\u2019s thought developed in the sense that his later dialogues represent an advancement in, or even a change from, his earlier thought\u2014apart from cases of outright contradiction of which there are few or none\u2014you have to specify what the development is a development of; that is, to use Aristotelian terminology once again, what is the underlying substrate for the development? But this underlying substrate will be the locus of continuity throughout the putative development; continuity that may be far more important than any change.\r\n\r\nI am not suggesting that Plato or any other philosopher never changed his mind. I am suggesting that the changes cannot ever be viewed uncritically as going from false to true or wrong to right. Consider someone who believes that the high point of Plato\u2019s thinking occurred in the early or middle dialogues. Someone like this would not consider the middle or late dialogues developments in any sense but the anodyne one mentioned above. Some scholars, looking at the identical texts, believe that Aristotle developed from a Platonist to something like an anti-Platonist, while others believe that his anti-Platonism was only a \u201cphase\u201d after which he developed into a Platonist once again. None of this is very helpful.\r\n\r\nThe reason I bring it up is that the Platonists of late antiquity who introduced the philosophical curriculum wherein the commentaries played such an important role were mostly impervious to the siren song of linearity. As we know from the accounts of the philosophical curriculum, perhaps introduced by Iamblichus or Porphyry in the late third century, students were obliged to study Aristotle before studying Plato. Studying Aristotle, or at least some of the works of Aristotle, was thought to be the most suitable preparation for studying Plato.\r\n\r\nThe reason for this is quite simple: the Platonists were aiming at truth rather than what we might like to think of as an \u201cobjective and unbiased\u201d account of the \u201cdevelopment\u201d of the history of philosophy. But we still should want to ask why the study of Aristotle was supposed to be conducive to understanding the truth as it is revealed in Plato and articulated by the man whom Proclus called \u201cthe exegete of the Platonic revelation,\u201d namely, Plotinus.\r\n\r\nSimplicius provides a preliminary answer to this question when he says in his Physics commentary that Aristotle was authoritative for the sensible world as Plato was for the intelligible world. Beginning the study of philosophy \u201cin\u201d the sensible world, in accord with Aristotle\u2019s remark in Physics\u2014that we start with things more intelligible to us and move to things more intelligible by nature\u2014puts the student in a better position to appreciate the more difficult insights found in the two works that comprise the culmination of philosophical study: namely, Timaeus and Parmenides.\r\n\r\nLet us be quite specific. The study of Categories is supposed to assist the student in preparing for the study of the intelligible world. Initially, this seems far-fetched. Indeed, it is not uncommon for contemporary Aristotle scholars to take Categories as in a way programmatic for an anti-Platonic Aristotelian philosophy, the focus of which is the individual sensible substance. So, on this showing, Iamblichus was naive to think that he was molding disciples of Platonism by having the students read Categories even before they encountered a dialogue of Plato.\r\n\r\nAs I have argued elsewhere, Iamblichus and Simplicius and many other prominent Platonists of late antiquity believed that Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was in harmony with Platonism. The way I characterized harmony was to argue that Aristotle\u2019s philosophy stood to Platonism analogous to the way that Newtonian mechanics stood to quantum mechanics. I was and am not altogether happy with letting my argument rest on an analogy in part because, in trying to explore further the details of harmony, one soon runs up against the limitations of the analogy.\r\n\r\nInstead, I would like to pursue a different approach here. I would like to argue that what underlies the claims of harmony is a set of shared principles; shared not only by self-proclaimed Platonists and by Aristotle, but by virtually all philosophers from at least 200 CE until perhaps the beginning of the seventeenth century, with only a few notable exceptions. It will become clear as I proceed why I have cast my net so widely. And I hope it will also become clear why the Aristotelian commentary tradition remains a critical component in the larger Platonic project. [introduction p. 7-9]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fH9zEC1gXGTy5tA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1510,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"2","issue":"4","pages":"7-23"}},"sort":[2014]}

Boéthos de Sidon sur les relatifs, 2013
By: Luna, Concetta

Title	Boéthos de Sidon sur les relatifs
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2013
Journal	Studia greaco-arabica
Volume	3
Pages	1-35
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Luna, Concetta
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The Peripatetic philosopher Boethus of Sidon (mid-first century BC), a pupil of Andronicus of Rhodes, is well-known for his commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, whose fragments are transmitted by later commentators together with testimonia about it. In his exegesis of the Categories, Boethus especially focused on the category of relation (Cat. 7), on which he wrote a speci!c treatise, arguing against the Stoics for the unity of the category of relation. The present paper o"ers a translation and analysis of Boethus’ fragments on relation, all of which are preserved in Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9oljjSmWv94OJA7

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1114","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1114,"authors_free":[{"id":1683,"entry_id":1114,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta","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":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon sur les relatifs","main_title":{"title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon sur les relatifs"},"abstract":"The Peripatetic philosopher Boethus of Sidon (mid-first century BC), a pupil of Andronicus of Rhodes, is well-known for his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, whose fragments are transmitted by later commentators together with testimonia about it. In his exegesis of the Categories, Boethus especially focused on the category of relation (Cat. 7), on which he wrote a speci!c treatise, arguing against the Stoics for the unity of the category of relation. The present paper o\"ers a translation and analysis of Boethus\u2019 fragments on relation, all of which are preserved in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9oljjSmWv94OJA7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1114,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia greaco-arabica","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"1-35"}},"sort":[2013]}

Un commentario alessandrino al «De caelo» di Aristotele, 2013
By: Rescigno, Andrea

Title	Un commentario alessandrino al «De caelo» di Aristotele
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2013
Journal	Athenaeum: Studi di letteratura e Storia dell'antichità
Volume	101
Issue	2
Pages	479-516
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rescigno, Andrea
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IR153pEdP84QTiX

{"_index":"sire","_id":"810","_score":null,"_source":{"id":810,"authors_free":[{"id":1200,"entry_id":810,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Rescigno","norm_person":{"id":500,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Rescigno","full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un commentario alessandrino al \u00abDe caelo\u00bb di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"Un commentario alessandrino al \u00abDe caelo\u00bb di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IR153pEdP84QTiX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":500,"full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":810,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Athenaeum: Studi di letteratura e Storia dell'antichit\u00e0","volume":"101","issue":"2","pages":"479-516"}},"sort":[2013]}

A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11), 2013
By: Minunno, Giuseppe, Loretz, Oswald (Ed.), Ribichini, Sergio (Ed.), Watson, Wilfred G. E. (Ed.), Zamora, José Antonio (Ed.)

Title	A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2013
Published in	Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella
Pages	553-560
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Minunno, Giuseppe
Editor(s)	Loretz, Oswald , Ribichini, Sergio , Watson, Wilfred G. E. , Zamora, José Antonio
Translator(s)

Writing about time, Aristotle noted that when someone is unaware of any change in his state of mind, he does not realise that time has elapsed, as happened to those who were recorded in Sardinia as sleeping near the “heroes.” On awakening, they connected the moment when they had fallen asleep to the moment when they awoke and therefore did not notice the interval. Aristotle’s meagre reference does not indicate either who these heroes were or the reason for sleeping near them, but some more information on the matter is provided by commentators on Aristotle. While Temistius’ commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle’s text, Philoponus claims that these persons were sick people who went and slept near the heroes. He also claims that, after having slept for five days uninterruptedly, they recovered. Simplicius believes that people slept near the heroes ὀνείρων ἕνεκεν ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς χρείας; furthermore, he asserts that the heroes mentioned by Aristotle were the nine sons whom Herakles begot by the daughters of Thespios. They died in Sardinia, where their corpses remained uncorrupted and intact, giving them the appearance of sleepers (φαντασίαν καθευδόντων παρεχόμενα). Tertullian, also, makes a reference to Aristotle who, according to him, mentioned incubatores of the sanctuary (fanum) of a Sardinian hero having the power to deprive them of dreams (visionibus privantem). [introduction p. 553-554]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT

Which ‘Athenodorus’ commented on Aristotle's "Categories"?, 2013
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	Which ‘Athenodorus’ commented on Aristotle's "Categories"?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2013
Journal	The Classical Quarterly
Volume	63
Issue	1
Pages	199-208
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The principate of Augustus coincided with a surge of interest in the short Aristotelian treatise which we now entitle Categories, contributing to its later installation at the outset of the philosophical curriculum and its traditional function as an introduction to logic. Thanks in part to remarks made by Plutarch (Sulla 26.1–2) and Porphyry (Vita Plotini 24.7), the origin of this interest has often been traced to Andronicus of Rhodes: his catalogue (πίνακες) and publication of the Aristotelian corpus began with the Categories and may have drawn fresh attention to a previously obscure treatise. But the later Neoplatonic sources name several other philosophers who also discussed the Categories and played an important role in crafting its interpretation during the first centuries of our era. For example, the Neoplatonist Simplicius discusses the views of Stoics and Platonists who questioned the Categories’ value as a treatment of grammar or ontology, while others defended its usefulness as an introduction to logic. These early debates, as these later sources suggest, exercised a lasting influence on the shape of subsequent philosophy and philosophical education within and beyond the Aristotelian tradition. In this note, I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories’ earliest critics, a Stoic identified only as ‘Athenodorus’ in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry, and Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this ‘Athenodorus’ with Athenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contemporary with Andronicus of Rhodes. I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering this identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.68) is, on philosophical grounds, a compelling candidate for identification with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes’ Athenodorus is relatively unlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility that our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted work on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in the first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who observes that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it). Such a story runs counter to the older consensus, now considerably less certain, that Andronicus was the first philosopher to draw serious attention to the Categories after it had languished for centuries out of circulation. Instead, we might regard Andronicus’ relocation of the text to the outset of the Aristotelian curriculum under the new title Categories as a relatively late chapter in an ongoing tradition of commentary and polemic. In what follows, I suggest some possible motives for Andronicus’ relocation of the Categories, if it can be viewed as a response to earlier criticism. [introduction p. 199-200]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IbfU0uOFgfzLjDG

{"_index":"sire","_id":"821","_score":null,"_source":{"id":821,"authors_free":[{"id":1222,"entry_id":821,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","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":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"The principate of Augustus coincided with a surge of interest in the short Aristotelian treatise which we now entitle Categories, contributing to its later installation at the outset of the philosophical curriculum and its traditional function as an introduction to logic. Thanks in part to remarks made by Plutarch (Sulla 26.1\u20132) and Porphyry (Vita Plotini 24.7), the origin of this interest has often been traced to Andronicus of Rhodes: his catalogue (\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2) and publication of the Aristotelian corpus began with the Categories and may have drawn fresh attention to a previously obscure treatise. But the later Neoplatonic sources name several other philosophers who also discussed the Categories and played an important role in crafting its interpretation during the first centuries of our era. For example, the Neoplatonist Simplicius discusses the views of Stoics and Platonists who questioned the Categories\u2019 value as a treatment of grammar or ontology, while others defended its usefulness as an introduction to logic. These early debates, as these later sources suggest, exercised a lasting influence on the shape of subsequent philosophy and philosophical education within and beyond the Aristotelian tradition.\r\n\r\nIn this note, I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories\u2019 earliest critics, a Stoic identified only as \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry, and Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 with Athenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contemporary with Andronicus of Rhodes. I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering this identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.68) is, on philosophical grounds, a compelling candidate for identification with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes\u2019 Athenodorus is relatively unlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility that our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted work on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in the first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who observes that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it).\r\n\r\nSuch a story runs counter to the older consensus, now considerably less certain, that Andronicus was the first philosopher to draw serious attention to the Categories after it had languished for centuries out of circulation. Instead, we might regard Andronicus\u2019 relocation of the text to the outset of the Aristotelian curriculum under the new title Categories as a relatively late chapter in an ongoing tradition of commentary and polemic. In what follows, I suggest some possible motives for Andronicus\u2019 relocation of the Categories, if it can be viewed as a response to earlier criticism. [introduction p. 199-200]","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IbfU0uOFgfzLjDG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":821,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"63","issue":"1","pages":"199-208"}},"sort":[2013]}

Simplicius on the Planets and their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy, 2013
By: Bowen, Alan C.

Title	Simplicius on the Planets and their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia Antiqua
Volume	133
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Though the digression closing Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo 2.12 has long been misread as a history of early Greek planetary theory, it is in fact a creative reading of Aristotle to maintain the authority of the De caelo as a sacred text in Late Platonism and to refute the polemic mounted by the Christian, John Philoponus. This book shows that the critical question forced on Simplicius was whether his school’s acceptance of Ptolemy’s planetary hypotheses entailed a rejection of Aristotle’s argument that the heavens are made of a special matter that moves by nature in a circle about the center of the cosmos and, thus, a repudiation of the thesis that the cosmos is uncreated and everlasting.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j5dIQfTR7cyHeCV

{"_index":"sire","_id":"237","_score":null,"_source":{"id":237,"authors_free":[{"id":303,"entry_id":237,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Planets and their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Planets and their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy"},"abstract":"Though the digression closing Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo 2.12 has long been misread as a history of early Greek planetary theory, it is in fact a creative reading of Aristotle to maintain the authority of the De caelo as a sacred text in Late Platonism and to refute the polemic mounted by the Christian, John Philoponus. This book shows that the critical question forced on Simplicius was whether his school\u2019s acceptance of Ptolemy\u2019s planetary hypotheses entailed a rejection of Aristotle\u2019s argument that the heavens are made of a special matter that moves by nature in a circle about the center of the cosmos and, thus, a repudiation of the thesis that the cosmos is uncreated and everlasting.","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j5dIQfTR7cyHeCV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":237,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"133","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010, 2013
By: Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator) (Ed.)

Title	Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)
Translator(s)

In der modernen Universität werden Literatur, Philologie und Philosophie als unterschiedliche Bereiche betrachtet. Damit wird eine im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert zunehmende Entfremdung zwischen der Erforschung antiker Philosophie und Philologie manifest, die den ursprünglichen Gegebenheiten in der Antike keineswegs gerecht wird. Denn die Philosophie entwickelt sich in Griechenland und Rom in enger Verbindung mit und oft in einem Spannungsverhältnis zu unterschiedlichen literarischen Genres. Dies hat zur Folge, dass die Autoren und Interpreten infolge der Wahl bestimmter Gattungen als Medium philosophischer Botschaften neben der eigentlichen Argumentation auch Darstellungsformen der jeweiligen Gattungen zu würdigen haben. Dieses oft spannungsvolle Verhältnis von philosophischem Argument und literarischer Form auszuleuchten hatte sich der 3. Kongress der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie vorgenommen. In Vorträgen und Diskussionsrunden von Philosophen und Philologen wurde diese Frage unter verschiedenen Aspekten mit Blick auf antike Philosophen verschiedener Epochen lebendig diskutiert. Dieser Band, der den Großteil dieser Beiträge versammelt, mag einen Eindruck von der Diskussion vermitteln und Philologen, Philosophen und an der Antike Interessierte zu weiteren Überlegungen anregen. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0QiKNhBCl16gJMn

{"_index":"sire","_id":"322","_score":null,"_source":{"id":322,"authors_free":[{"id":408,"entry_id":322,"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}},{"id":2426,"entry_id":322,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":479,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":479,"first_name":"Benedikt","last_name":"Blumenfelder","full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2427,"entry_id":322,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":479,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Blumenfelder","norm_person":{"id":479,"first_name":"Benedikt","last_name":"Blumenfelder","full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie 2010","main_title":{"title":"Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie 2010"},"abstract":"In der modernen Universit\u00e4t werden Literatur, Philologie und Philosophie als unterschiedliche Bereiche betrachtet. Damit wird eine im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert zunehmende Entfremdung zwischen der Erforschung antiker Philosophie und Philologie manifest, die den urspr\u00fcnglichen Gegebenheiten in der Antike keineswegs gerecht wird. Denn die Philosophie entwickelt sich in Griechenland und Rom in enger Verbindung mit und oft in einem Spannungsverh\u00e4ltnis zu unterschiedlichen literarischen Genres. Dies hat zur Folge, dass die Autoren und Interpreten infolge der Wahl bestimmter Gattungen als Medium philosophischer Botschaften neben der eigentlichen Argumentation auch Darstellungsformen der jeweiligen Gattungen zu w\u00fcrdigen haben. Dieses oft spannungsvolle Verh\u00e4ltnis von philosophischem Argument und literarischer Form auszuleuchten hatte sich der 3. Kongress der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie vorgenommen. In Vortr\u00e4gen und Diskussionsrunden von Philosophen und Philologen wurde diese Frage unter verschiedenen Aspekten mit Blick auf antike Philosophen verschiedener Epochen lebendig diskutiert. Dieser Band, der den Gro\u00dfteil dieser Beitr\u00e4ge versammelt, mag einen Eindruck von der Diskussion vermitteln und Philologen, Philosophen und an der Antike Interessierte zu weiteren \u00dcberlegungen anregen. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0QiKNhBCl16gJMn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":479,"full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":479,"full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":322,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella, 2013
By: Watson, Wilfred G. E. (Ed.), Ribichini, Sergio (Ed.), Loretz, Oswald (Ed.), Zamora, José Antonio (Ed.)

Title	Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	Münster
Publisher	Ugarit
Series	Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Volume	404
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Watson, Wilfred G. E. , Ribichini, Sergio , Loretz, Oswald , Zamora, José Antonio
Translator(s)

Anlässlich eines besonderen Geburtstag von Paolo Xella widmen ihm seine Kollegen und Freunde eine Festschrift. Den Interessen des bekannten Gelehrten folgend ist das Buch in drei Abschnitte unterteilt, in "Archäologie - Kunstgeschichte - Numismatik", "Philologie - Epigraphik" und "History - Die Geschichte der Religionen - Historiographie". Mehr als 50 Artikel liegen den Fokus vor allem auf die Welt der phönizischen Levante bis nach Spanien. Neben einer großen Zahl von Aufsätzen in italienischen Sprache sind Forschungsergebnisse in Englisch, Deutsch und Französisch zu verzeichnen. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iUTyM3hPAwKbnMb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"330","_score":null,"_source":{"id":330,"authors_free":[{"id":424,"entry_id":330,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":525,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","free_first_name":"Wilfred G. E.","free_last_name":"Watson","norm_person":{"id":525,"first_name":"Wilfred G. E.","last_name":"Watson","full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023330482","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":425,"entry_id":330,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":524,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","free_first_name":"Sergio","free_last_name":"Ribichini","norm_person":{"id":524,"first_name":"Sergio","last_name":"Ribichini","full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1197574263","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2511,"entry_id":330,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":523,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Loretz, Oswald","free_first_name":"Oswald","free_last_name":"Loretz","norm_person":{"id":523,"first_name":"Oswald","last_name":"Loretz","full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119014394","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2512,"entry_id":330,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":526,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Antonio","free_last_name":"Zamora","norm_person":{"id":526,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Antonio","last_name":"Zamora","full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114954488","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella","main_title":{"title":"Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella"},"abstract":"Anl\u00e4sslich eines besonderen Geburtstag von Paolo Xella widmen ihm seine Kollegen und Freunde eine Festschrift. Den Interessen des bekannten Gelehrten folgend ist das Buch in drei Abschnitte unterteilt, in \"Arch\u00e4ologie - Kunstgeschichte - Numismatik\", \"Philologie - Epigraphik\" und \"History - Die Geschichte der Religionen - Historiographie\". Mehr als 50 Artikel liegen den Fokus vor allem auf die Welt der ph\u00f6nizischen Levante bis nach Spanien. Neben einer gro\u00dfen Zahl von Aufs\u00e4tzen in italienischen Sprache sind Forschungsergebnisse in Englisch, Deutsch und Franz\u00f6sisch zu verzeichnen. [Author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iUTyM3hPAwKbnMb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":525,"full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":524,"full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":523,"full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":526,"full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":330,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnster","publisher":"Ugarit","series":"Alter Orient und Altes Testament","volume":"404","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie, 2013
By: Rousseau, Philippe

Title	Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2013
Publication Place	Lille
Publisher	Presses universitaires du Septentrion
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rousseau, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Figure critique majeure des études de philologie classique en Italie, Diego Lanza a renouvelé en profondeur l'approche des œuvres de la littérature grecque ancienne. Ses travaux conjuguent un intérêt, partiellement hérité de la philologie historique, pour l'histoire de la tradition, avec une analyse, inspirée notamment de Marx et de Gramsci, de la fonction des textes anciens comme instruments de médiation idéologique, interrogeant ainsi conjointement le passé et le présent des appropriations culturelles. Les problématiques de l'anthropologie occupent une place privilégiée dans sa lecture de l’Antiquité, mais leur espace de référence n’est pas celui de l’anthropologie structurale, de la psychologie historique ou de la critique symbolique de l’école française. C’est plutôt l’étude du folklore, où l’analyse de la culture populaire est orientée par un intérêt spécifique pour les antagonismes qui la structurent. Les essais réunis dans ce volume reviennent sur les objets auxquels Diego Lanza s’est intéressé – poésie archaïque (Homère), théâtre classique (Euripide, Aristophane), philosophie « présocratique » et classique (Anaxagore, Aristote), histoire de la philologie – et dans la diversité de leurs points de vue, esquissent un bilan des aspects les plus significatifs d’une œuvre scientifique originale et stimulante. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LY1f6edLjdTkqq3

{"_index":"sire","_id":"340","_score":null,"_source":{"id":340,"authors_free":[{"id":439,"entry_id":340,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":457,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Rousseau","norm_person":{"id":457,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Rousseau","full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038717787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. Po\u00e9sie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie","main_title":{"title":"Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. Po\u00e9sie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie"},"abstract":"Figure critique majeure des \u00e9tudes de philologie classique en Italie, Diego Lanza a renouvel\u00e9 en profondeur l'approche des \u0153uvres de la litt\u00e9rature grecque ancienne. Ses travaux conjuguent un int\u00e9r\u00eat, partiellement h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la philologie historique, pour l'histoire de la tradition, avec une analyse, inspir\u00e9e notamment de Marx et de Gramsci, de la fonction des textes anciens comme instruments de m\u00e9diation id\u00e9ologique, interrogeant ainsi conjointement le pass\u00e9 et le pr\u00e9sent des appropriations culturelles. Les probl\u00e9matiques de l'anthropologie occupent une place privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e dans sa lecture de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, mais leur espace de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence n\u2019est pas celui de l\u2019anthropologie structurale, de la psychologie historique ou de la critique symbolique de l\u2019\u00e9cole fran\u00e7aise. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t l\u2019\u00e9tude du folklore, o\u00f9 l\u2019analyse de la culture populaire est orient\u00e9e par un int\u00e9r\u00eat sp\u00e9cifique pour les antagonismes qui la structurent. Les essais r\u00e9unis dans ce volume reviennent sur les objets auxquels Diego Lanza s\u2019est int\u00e9ress\u00e9 \u2013 po\u00e9sie archa\u00efque (Hom\u00e8re), th\u00e9\u00e2tre classique (Euripide, Aristophane), philosophie \u00ab pr\u00e9socratique \u00bb et classique (Anaxagore, Aristote), histoire de la philologie \u2013 et dans la diversit\u00e9 de leurs points de vue, esquissent un bilan des aspects les plus significatifs d\u2019une \u0153uvre scientifique originale et stimulante.\r\n[author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LY1f6edLjdTkqq3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":457,"full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":340,"pubplace":"Lille","publisher":"Presses universitaires du Septentrion","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Stoische Ethik und platonische Bildung: Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Handbüchlein der Moral, 2013
By: Vogel, C.

Title	Stoische Ethik und platonische Bildung: Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Handbüchlein der Moral
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2013
Publication Place	Heidelberg
Publisher	Universitätsverlag
Series	Studien zu Literatur und Erkenntnis
Volume	5
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Vogel, C.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Die stoische Philosophie steht in ihren grundsätzlichen Annahmen zur Erkenntnistheorie, zur Ontologie und zur Psychologie dem Platonismus diametral entgegen. Wenn mit Simplikios ein Philosoph der neuplatonischen Schule das Werk eines Stoikers durch eine ausführliche Kommentierung würdigt und diesem im Curriculum des Philosophieunterrichts einen Platz einräumt, scheinen sich die gängigen Vorurteile gegen den Neuplatonismus als eine alles vereinnahmende und harmonisierende Philosophie zu bestätigen. Ein Blick auf das Bildungsverständnis des Neuplatonismus und den in den Texten ausführlich reflektierten erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen bietet jedoch Anlass sowohl zur Skepsis gegenüber diesen Vorwürfen als auch zu einer differenzierten Untersuchung des Verhältnisses von platonischer und stoischer Ethik in der Spätantike. Am Beispiel von Simplikios' Kommentar zum 'Handbüchlein der Moral' des Epiket soll im vorliegenden Buch die Möglichkeit der Verwendung stoischer Texte als Vorbereitung für den Einstieg in das neuplatonische Bildungsprogramm dargelegt und begründet werden, ohne dass der Einsatz dieser Texte zu einer Vermischung der stoischen mit den platonisch-aristotelischen Theorien führt. So liefert Simplikios mit seinem Kommentar eine wissenschaftliche Ethik des Neuplatonismus, die mit der Darlegung und Beschreibung der Anweisungen Epiktets dem Unkundigen sowohl einen ersten Zugang in das philosophische Leben bietet als auch mit seinen weiterführenden Kommentierungen die rationalen Begründungen dieser Handlungsaufforderungen offenlegt.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xXsDZFA5RWj8rnI

{"_index":"sire","_id":"210","_score":null,"_source":{"id":210,"authors_free":[{"id":267,"entry_id":210,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":438,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vogel, C.","free_first_name":"C.","free_last_name":"Vogel","norm_person":{"id":438,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Vogel","full_name":"Vogel, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1111515123","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Stoische Ethik und platonische Bildung: Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Handb\u00fcchlein der Moral","main_title":{"title":"Stoische Ethik und platonische Bildung: Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Handb\u00fcchlein der Moral"},"abstract":"Die stoische Philosophie steht in ihren grunds\u00e4tzlichen Annahmen zur Erkenntnistheorie, zur Ontologie und zur Psychologie dem Platonismus diametral entgegen. Wenn mit Simplikios ein Philosoph der neuplatonischen Schule das Werk eines Stoikers durch eine ausf\u00fchrliche Kommentierung w\u00fcrdigt und diesem im Curriculum des Philosophieunterrichts einen Platz einr\u00e4umt, scheinen sich die g\u00e4ngigen Vorurteile gegen den Neuplatonismus als eine alles vereinnahmende und harmonisierende Philosophie zu best\u00e4tigen. Ein Blick auf das Bildungsverst\u00e4ndnis des Neuplatonismus und den in den Texten ausf\u00fchrlich reflektierten erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen bietet jedoch Anlass sowohl zur Skepsis gegen\u00fcber diesen Vorw\u00fcrfen als auch zu einer differenzierten Untersuchung des Verh\u00e4ltnisses von platonischer und stoischer Ethik in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Am Beispiel von Simplikios' Kommentar zum 'Handb\u00fcchlein der Moral' des Epiket soll im vorliegenden Buch die M\u00f6glichkeit der Verwendung stoischer Texte als Vorbereitung f\u00fcr den Einstieg in das neuplatonische Bildungsprogramm dargelegt und begr\u00fcndet werden, ohne dass der Einsatz dieser Texte zu einer Vermischung der stoischen mit den platonisch-aristotelischen Theorien f\u00fchrt. So liefert Simplikios mit seinem Kommentar eine wissenschaftliche Ethik des Neuplatonismus, die mit der Darlegung und Beschreibung der Anweisungen Epiktets dem Unkundigen sowohl einen ersten Zugang in das philosophische Leben bietet als auch mit seinen weiterf\u00fchrenden Kommentierungen die rationalen Begr\u00fcndungen dieser Handlungsaufforderungen offenlegt.","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xXsDZFA5RWj8rnI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":438,"full_name":"Vogel, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":210,"pubplace":"Heidelberg","publisher":"Universit\u00e4tsverlag","series":"Studien zu Literatur und Erkenntnis","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Simplicius, Corollaries on place and time, 2013
By: Simplicius, Cilicius, Urmson, L., James O. (Ed.), Siorvanes, Lucas (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, Corollaries on place and time
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)	Urmson, L., James O. , Siorvanes, Lucas
Translator(s)	Urmson, L., James O.(Urmson, James O.) , Siorvanes, Lucas(Siorvanes, Lucas) ,

Is there such a thing as three-dimensional space? Is space inert or dynamic? Is the division of time into past, present and future real? Does the whole of time exist all at once? Does it progress smoothly or by discontinuous leaps? Simplicius surveys ideas about place and time from the preceding thousand years of Greek Philosophy and reveals the extraordinary ingenuity of the late Neoplatonist theories, which he regards as marking a substantial advance on all previous ideas.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XcqDgDAa6w30tGz

{"_index":"sire","_id":"215","_score":null,"_source":{"id":215,"authors_free":[{"id":274,"entry_id":215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":435,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Urmson, L., James O.","free_first_name":"L., James O.","free_last_name":"Urmson","norm_person":{"id":435,"first_name":"James O.","last_name":"Urmson","full_name":"Urmson, James O.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12972954X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":275,"entry_id":215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":436,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Siorvanes, Lucas","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Siorvanes","norm_person":{"id":436,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Siorvanes","full_name":"Siorvanes, Lucas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1211775879","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2290,"entry_id":215,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius, Cilicius","free_first_name":"Cilicius","free_last_name":"Simplicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2515,"entry_id":215,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":435,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Urmson, L., James O.","free_first_name":"James O.","free_last_name":"Urmson","norm_person":{"id":435,"first_name":"James O.","last_name":"Urmson","full_name":"Urmson, James O.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12972954X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2516,"entry_id":215,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":436,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Siorvanes, Lucas","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Siorvanes","norm_person":{"id":436,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Siorvanes","full_name":"Siorvanes, Lucas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1211775879","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Corollaries on place and time","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Corollaries on place and time"},"abstract":"Is there such a thing as three-dimensional space? Is space inert or dynamic? Is the division of time into past, present and future real? Does the whole of time exist all at once? Does it progress smoothly or by discontinuous leaps?\r\nSimplicius surveys ideas about place and time from the preceding thousand years of Greek Philosophy and reveals the extraordinary ingenuity of the late Neoplatonist theories, which he regards as marking a substantial advance on all previous ideas.","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XcqDgDAa6w30tGz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":435,"full_name":"Urmson, James O.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":436,"full_name":"Siorvanes, Lucas","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":435,"full_name":"Urmson, James O.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":436,"full_name":"Siorvanes, Lucas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":215,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

La dottrina dell’autocoscienza nel commentario al De anima attribuito a Simplicio, 2013
By: Militello, Chiara

Title	La dottrina dell’autocoscienza nel commentario al De anima attribuito a Simplicio
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2013
Publication Place	Acireale; Roma
Publisher	Bonanno
Series	Cultura e formazione; Filosofia
Volume	24
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Militello, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Il presente volume tratta del commentario al De anima di Aristotele che la tradizione manoscritta ascrive a Simplicio e che alcuni studiosi hanno attribuito a Prisciano Lido, e in particolare della concezione dell'autocoscienza del senso, della ragione e dell'intelletto ivi esposta. I passi rilevanti sono messi a confronto con quelli degli altri commentari neoplatonici al De anima rimastici al fine di evidenziare la peculiarità delle teorie che "Simplicio" ha elaborato per conciliare le tesi aristoteliche e la tradizione platonica. Da questo studio emerge l'importanza del commentario di "Simplicio", in cui viene presentata una teoria innovativa sui diversi modi in cui l'anima umana conosce se stessa e le proprie attività.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nKjLFiYMWmnkop1

{"_index":"sire","_id":"222","_score":null,"_source":{"id":222,"authors_free":[{"id":284,"entry_id":222,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":2,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Militello, Chiara","free_first_name":"Chiara","free_last_name":"Militello","norm_person":{"id":2,"first_name":"Chiara ","last_name":"Militello ","full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666461X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La dottrina dell\u2019autocoscienza nel commentario al De anima attribuito a Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"La dottrina dell\u2019autocoscienza nel commentario al De anima attribuito a Simplicio"},"abstract":"Il presente volume tratta del commentario al De anima di Aristotele che la tradizione manoscritta ascrive a Simplicio e che alcuni studiosi hanno attribuito a Prisciano Lido, e in particolare della concezione dell'autocoscienza del senso, della ragione e dell'intelletto ivi esposta. I passi rilevanti sono messi a confronto con quelli degli altri commentari neoplatonici al De anima rimastici al fine di evidenziare la peculiarit\u00e0 delle teorie che \"Simplicio\" ha elaborato per conciliare le tesi aristoteliche e la tradizione platonica. Da questo studio emerge l'importanza del commentario di \"Simplicio\", in cui viene presentata una teoria innovativa sui diversi modi in cui l'anima umana conosce se stessa e le proprie attivit\u00e0.","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nKjLFiYMWmnkop1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":2,"full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":222,"pubplace":"Acireale; Roma","publisher":"Bonanno","series":"Cultura e formazione; Filosofia","volume":"24","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Philoponus, On Aristotle ‘Physics 5-8’ with Simplicius, On Aristotle on the Void, 2013
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Philoponus, On Aristotle ‘Physics 5-8’ with Simplicius, On Aristotle on the Void
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Urmson, J. O.(Urmson, James O.) , Lettinck, P.(Lettinck, P.) ,

Paul Lettinck has restored a lost text of Philoponus by translating it for the first time from Arabic (only limited fragments have survived in the original Greek). The text, recovered from annotations in an Arabic translation of Aristotle, is an abridging paraphrase of Philoponus' commentary on Physics Books 5-7, with two final comments on Book 8. The Simplicius text, which consists of his comments on Aristotle's treatment of the void in chapters 6-9 of Book 4 of the Physics, comes from Simplicius' huge commentary on Book 4. Simplicius' comments on Aristotle's treatment of place and time have been translated by J. O. Urmson in two earlier volumes of this series.[author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dftDwj5tHNlsKrR

{"_index":"sire","_id":"91","_score":null,"_source":{"id":91,"authors_free":[{"id":104,"entry_id":91,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":435,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Urmson, J. O.","free_first_name":"J. O.","free_last_name":"Urmson","norm_person":{"id":435,"first_name":"James O.","last_name":"Urmson","full_name":"Urmson, James O.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12972954X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":105,"entry_id":91,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":437,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Lettinck, P.","free_first_name":"P.","free_last_name":"Lettinck","norm_person":{"id":437,"first_name":"P.","last_name":"Lettinck","full_name":"Lettinck, P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2293,"entry_id":91,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius, Cilicius","free_first_name":"Cilicius","free_last_name":"Simplicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 5-8\u2019 with Simplicius, On Aristotle on the Void","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 5-8\u2019 with Simplicius, On Aristotle on the Void"},"abstract":"Paul Lettinck has restored a lost text of Philoponus by translating it for the first time from Arabic (only limited fragments have survived in the original Greek). The text, recovered from annotations in an Arabic translation of Aristotle, is an abridging paraphrase of Philoponus' commentary on Physics Books 5-7, with two final comments on Book 8. The Simplicius text, which consists of his comments on Aristotle's treatment of the void in chapters 6-9 of Book 4 of the Physics, comes from Simplicius' huge commentary on Book 4. Simplicius' comments on Aristotle's treatment of place and time have been translated by J. O. Urmson in two earlier volumes of this series.[author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dftDwj5tHNlsKrR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":435,"full_name":"Urmson, James O.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":437,"full_name":"Lettinck, P.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":91,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Soul 1.1-2.4’, 2013
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Soul 1.1-2.4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Urmson, J. O.(Urmson, James O.) , Lautner, P.(Lautner, Peter) ,

The commentary attributed to Simplicius on Aristotle's On the Soul appears in this series in three volumes, of which this is the first. The translation provides the first opportunity for a wider readership to assess the disputed question of authorship. Is the work by Simplicius, or by his colleague Priscian, or by another commentator? In the second volume, Priscian's Paraphrase of Theophrastus on Sense Perception, which covers the same subject, will also be translated for comparison. Whatever its authorship, the commentary is a major source for late Neoplatonist theories of thought and sense perception and provides considerable insight into this important area of Aristotle's thought. In this first volume, the Neoplatonist commentator covers the first half of Aristotle's On the Soul, comprising Aristotle's survey of his predecessors and his own rival account of the nature of the soul. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WG1WMmw3qeawVVc

{"_index":"sire","_id":"93","_score":null,"_source":{"id":93,"authors_free":[{"id":108,"entry_id":93,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":435,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Urmson, J. O.","free_first_name":"J. O.","free_last_name":"Urmson","norm_person":{"id":435,"first_name":"James O.","last_name":"Urmson","full_name":"Urmson, James O.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12972954X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":109,"entry_id":93,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Lautner, P.","free_first_name":"P.","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2295,"entry_id":93,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius, Cilicius","free_first_name":"Cilicius","free_last_name":"Simplicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Soul 1.1-2.4\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Soul 1.1-2.4\u2019"},"abstract":"The commentary attributed to Simplicius on Aristotle's On the Soul appears in this series in three volumes, of which this is the first. The translation provides the first opportunity for a wider readership to assess the disputed question of authorship. Is the work by Simplicius, or by his colleague Priscian, or by another commentator? In the second volume, Priscian's Paraphrase of Theophrastus on Sense Perception, which covers the same subject, will also be translated for comparison.\r\nWhatever its authorship, the commentary is a major source for late Neoplatonist theories of thought and sense perception and provides considerable insight into this important area of Aristotle's thought. In this first volume, the Neoplatonist commentator covers the first half of Aristotle's On the Soul, comprising Aristotle's survey of his predecessors and his own rival account of the nature of the soul. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WG1WMmw3qeawVVc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":435,"full_name":"Urmson, James O.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":93,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle's Categories 9-15, 2013
By: Simplicius, Gaskin, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle's Categories 9-15
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Gaskin, Richard
Translator(s)	Gaskin, Richard(Gaskin, Richard ) ,

Aristotle classified the things in the world into ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relative, etc. Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, attacked the classification, accepting only these first four categories, rejecting the other six, and adding one of this own: change. He preferred Plato’s classification into five kinds which included change. In this part of his commentary, Simplicius records the controversy on the six categories which Plotinus rejected: acting, being acted upon, being in a position, when, where, and having on. Plotinus’ pupil and editor, Porphyry, defended all six categories as applicable to the physical world, even if not to the world of Platonic Forms to which Platonist studies must eventually progress. Porphyry’s pupil, lamblichus, went further: taken in a suitable sense, Aristotle’s categories apply also to the world of Forms, although they require Pythagorean reinterpretation. Simplicius may be closer to Porphyry that to lamblichus, and indeed Porphyry’s defence established Aristotle’s categories once and for all in Western thought. But the probing controversy of this period none the less revealed more effectively than any discussion of modern times the profound difficulties in Aristotle’s categorical scheme. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OOD3JZhq2VbNbHJ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"110","_score":null,"_source":{"id":110,"authors_free":[{"id":131,"entry_id":110,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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":2255,"entry_id":110,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2373,"entry_id":110,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle's Categories 9-15","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle's Categories 9-15"},"abstract":"Aristotle classified the things in the world into ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relative, etc. Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, attacked the classification, accepting only these first four categories, rejecting the other six, and adding one of this own: change. He preferred Plato\u2019s classification into five kinds which included change.\r\n\r\nIn this part of his commentary, Simplicius records the controversy on the six categories which Plotinus rejected: acting, being acted upon, being in a position, when, where, and having on. Plotinus\u2019 pupil and editor, Porphyry, defended all six categories as applicable to the physical world, even if not to the world of Platonic Forms to which Platonist studies must eventually progress. Porphyry\u2019s pupil, lamblichus, went further: taken in a suitable sense, Aristotle\u2019s categories apply also to the world of Forms, although they require Pythagorean reinterpretation. Simplicius may be closer to Porphyry that to lamblichus, and indeed Porphyry\u2019s defence established Aristotle\u2019s categories once and for all in Western thought. But the probing controversy of this period none the less revealed more effectively than any discussion of modern times the profound difficulties in Aristotle\u2019s categorical scheme. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OOD3JZhq2VbNbHJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":110,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle, 2013
By: Steel, Carlos, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator) (Ed.)

Title	Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2013
Published in	Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010
Pages	469-494
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)
Translator(s)

We are here together to discuss various forms of philosophy in antiquity. There is a surprising variety of literary genres of philosophy so different from the narrow academic format of proceedings, handbooks, and referred journal articles. Already among the works of Aristotle, as the commentators noticed, there is a great variety, and Aristotle always adapted his style to the genre: dialogues, letters, protreptics, documentation works, research discussions, treatises on ethics and politics aiming at a broader public. And if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting. The title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading “challenging literary texts.” It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required. To play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: “In this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man’s writings admit of more than one interpretation.” This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author. To avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias’ argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed. All participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates’ belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine. For this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things. When commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (ἐπιπόλαιοι) and profound (βαθύτεροι) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, “find pleasure in plausible arguments,” based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. “The more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (πρόχειρον) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.” In this sense, I would also like to be a ‘profound’ reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor. For, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: “What do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?” [conclusion p. 490-492]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0

L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques réflexions, 2013
By: Louguet, Claire, Rousseau, Phillipe (Ed.)

Title	L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques réflexions
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2013
Published in	Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie
Pages	51-84
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Louguet, Claire
Editor(s)	Rousseau, Phillipe
Translator(s)

Le système d’Anaxagore est un labyrinthe où l’on se perd et dont on peine à trouver l’issue, une énigme dont on ne peut pourtant s’empêcher de chercher la solution. Mais cette solution, objet de la quête de tout interprète franchissant le seuil du labyrinthe, a-t-elle jamais existé ? Était-elle exposée par Anaxagore dans les textes qui ont disparu sans doute à jamais ? Anaxagore voyait-il lui-même les contradictions internes qu’ont décelées ses critiques ? Si oui, les assumait-il lui-même ? Lorsqu’on interprète des textes (et à plus forte raison lorsqu’ils sont fragmentaires), on recherche une cohérence qui rende intelligible l’ensemble. En ce qui concerne Anaxagore, on le fait le plus souvent en introduisant des éléments que les textes ne mentionnent pas, trouvant sans doute dans l’aspect fragmentaire du corpus une raison qui légitime une telle démarche. Il y a autant d’interprétations et d’hypothèses que d’interprètes, et, dans le cas d’Anaxagore, cette multitude de voix discordantes rend plus complexe encore la structure du labyrinthe, si bien qu’on désespère d’en trouver un jour l’issue. Dans ce bruissement de voix multiples qui ne cesse de s’amplifier, dans cette quête effrénée de la solution, la lecture des travaux de Lanza nous invite à faire une pause, à nous éloigner du vacarme et à nous taire, pour écouter et réfléchir. Car ce qui distingue la démarche de Lanza, c’est justement qu’elle engage le lecteur à un travail réflexif, à un retour sur son propre travail d’interprète. Si donc les thèses de Lanza peuvent trouver leur place dans une doxographie des interprétations, l’important en réalité n’est pas là (ou pas seulement), mais dans le fait qu’il se situe en dehors, car son geste dépasse le cadre général des interprétations : il se situe hors champ, pour ainsi dire. Certains estimeront ou ont estimé sans doute qu’il reste en deçà ; je dirai pour ma part qu’il va au-delà et qu’il nous emmène au-delà du cadre balisé. Tout dépend de ce que l’on cherche : le Socrate du Théétète ne parvient pas au but officiel ou explicite du dialogue, mais il fait avancer considérablement ses interlocuteurs (et les lecteurs) dans la démarche de la recherche, et ce faisant, il atteint le but véritable. Ce que Lanza donne au lecteur est moins un contenu que les moyens de se faire sa propre interprétation, les moyens de la construire de la façon la moins naïve et la plus consciente possible. Quels que soient les résultats qu’il obtient en termes de compréhension du système d’Anaxagore, quelles que soient les hypothèses qu’il propose, ce genre de considération suffit à rendre son travail original et utile aujourd’hui encore. Si son travail est daté, c’est « par accident » : parce qu’il se situe dans les années 1960, à une époque où les interprétations majeures (anglo-saxonnes pour la plupart) étaient orientées vers une conception particulariste (ou corpusculariste) des éléments d’Anaxagore. Bien que l’objectif de Lanza ne soit pas polémique, il est évident qu’il a construit sa propre interprétation en opposition à ce genre de reconstructions – cela apparaît comme un leitmotiv dans ses commentaires. Dans ce qui suit, je ne prendrai pas position sur ces questions passionnantes mais assez datées, ni sur la question de savoir si Lanza a raison d’attribuer à ces interprètes des confusions entre Anaxagore et l’atomisme. En revanche, j’insisterai sur les points forts de son travail, qui ont ceci de remarquable qu’ils ne sont pas atteints, eux, par la contingence ni soumis aux vicissitudes du temps. Comme nous le verrons, cette solidité tient au fait que Lanza évolue dans la sphère du vraisemblable et qu’il se montre sensible au fait que son objet possède une unité. Je présenterai d’abord les éléments remarquables de l’interprétation de Lanza, après quoi j’exposerai un point épineux de la réception ancienne et moderne (la question des homéomères), qui a particulièrement intéressé Lanza et au sujet duquel il a une thèse forte qu’il convient d’examiner. [introduction p. 51-52]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8fCGIzpqB6IdoMr

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1373","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1373,"authors_free":[{"id":2069,"entry_id":1373,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":238,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Louguet, Claire","free_first_name":"Claire","free_last_name":"Louguet","norm_person":{"id":238,"first_name":"Claire","last_name":"Louguet","full_name":"Louguet, Claire ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2389,"entry_id":1373,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":457,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rousseau, Phillipe","free_first_name":"Phillipe","free_last_name":"Rousseau","norm_person":{"id":457,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Rousseau","full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038717787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions","main_title":{"title":"L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions"},"abstract":"Le syst\u00e8me d\u2019Anaxagore est un labyrinthe o\u00f9 l\u2019on se perd et dont on peine \u00e0 trouver l\u2019issue, une \u00e9nigme dont on ne peut pourtant s\u2019emp\u00eacher de chercher la solution. Mais cette solution, objet de la qu\u00eate de tout interpr\u00e8te franchissant le seuil du labyrinthe, a-t-elle jamais exist\u00e9 ? \u00c9tait-elle expos\u00e9e par Anaxagore dans les textes qui ont disparu sans doute \u00e0 jamais ? Anaxagore voyait-il lui-m\u00eame les contradictions internes qu\u2019ont d\u00e9cel\u00e9es ses critiques ? Si oui, les assumait-il lui-m\u00eame ?\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019on interpr\u00e8te des textes (et \u00e0 plus forte raison lorsqu\u2019ils sont fragmentaires), on recherche une coh\u00e9rence qui rende intelligible l\u2019ensemble. En ce qui concerne Anaxagore, on le fait le plus souvent en introduisant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments que les textes ne mentionnent pas, trouvant sans doute dans l\u2019aspect fragmentaire du corpus une raison qui l\u00e9gitime une telle d\u00e9marche. Il y a autant d\u2019interpr\u00e9tations et d\u2019hypoth\u00e8ses que d\u2019interpr\u00e8tes, et, dans le cas d\u2019Anaxagore, cette multitude de voix discordantes rend plus complexe encore la structure du labyrinthe, si bien qu\u2019on d\u00e9sesp\u00e8re d\u2019en trouver un jour l\u2019issue.\r\n\r\nDans ce bruissement de voix multiples qui ne cesse de s\u2019amplifier, dans cette qu\u00eate effr\u00e9n\u00e9e de la solution, la lecture des travaux de Lanza nous invite \u00e0 faire une pause, \u00e0 nous \u00e9loigner du vacarme et \u00e0 nous taire, pour \u00e9couter et r\u00e9fl\u00e9chir. Car ce qui distingue la d\u00e9marche de Lanza, c\u2019est justement qu\u2019elle engage le lecteur \u00e0 un travail r\u00e9flexif, \u00e0 un retour sur son propre travail d\u2019interpr\u00e8te.\r\n\r\nSi donc les th\u00e8ses de Lanza peuvent trouver leur place dans une doxographie des interpr\u00e9tations, l\u2019important en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 n\u2019est pas l\u00e0 (ou pas seulement), mais dans le fait qu\u2019il se situe en dehors, car son geste d\u00e9passe le cadre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des interpr\u00e9tations : il se situe hors champ, pour ainsi dire. Certains estimeront ou ont estim\u00e9 sans doute qu\u2019il reste en de\u00e7\u00e0 ; je dirai pour ma part qu\u2019il va au-del\u00e0 et qu\u2019il nous emm\u00e8ne au-del\u00e0 du cadre balis\u00e9. Tout d\u00e9pend de ce que l\u2019on cherche : le Socrate du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te ne parvient pas au but officiel ou explicite du dialogue, mais il fait avancer consid\u00e9rablement ses interlocuteurs (et les lecteurs) dans la d\u00e9marche de la recherche, et ce faisant, il atteint le but v\u00e9ritable.\r\n\r\nCe que Lanza donne au lecteur est moins un contenu que les moyens de se faire sa propre interpr\u00e9tation, les moyens de la construire de la fa\u00e7on la moins na\u00efve et la plus consciente possible. Quels que soient les r\u00e9sultats qu\u2019il obtient en termes de compr\u00e9hension du syst\u00e8me d\u2019Anaxagore, quelles que soient les hypoth\u00e8ses qu\u2019il propose, ce genre de consid\u00e9ration suffit \u00e0 rendre son travail original et utile aujourd\u2019hui encore.\r\n\r\nSi son travail est dat\u00e9, c\u2019est \u00ab par accident \u00bb : parce qu\u2019il se situe dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, \u00e0 une \u00e9poque o\u00f9 les interpr\u00e9tations majeures (anglo-saxonnes pour la plupart) \u00e9taient orient\u00e9es vers une conception particulariste (ou corpusculariste) des \u00e9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Anaxagore. Bien que l\u2019objectif de Lanza ne soit pas pol\u00e9mique, il est \u00e9vident qu\u2019il a construit sa propre interpr\u00e9tation en opposition \u00e0 ce genre de reconstructions \u2013 cela appara\u00eet comme un leitmotiv dans ses commentaires.\r\n\r\nDans ce qui suit, je ne prendrai pas position sur ces questions passionnantes mais assez dat\u00e9es, ni sur la question de savoir si Lanza a raison d\u2019attribuer \u00e0 ces interpr\u00e8tes des confusions entre Anaxagore et l\u2019atomisme. En revanche, j\u2019insisterai sur les points forts de son travail, qui ont ceci de remarquable qu\u2019ils ne sont pas atteints, eux, par la contingence ni soumis aux vicissitudes du temps. Comme nous le verrons, cette solidit\u00e9 tient au fait que Lanza \u00e9volue dans la sph\u00e8re du vraisemblable et qu\u2019il se montre sensible au fait que son objet poss\u00e8de une unit\u00e9.\r\n\r\nJe pr\u00e9senterai d\u2019abord les \u00e9l\u00e9ments remarquables de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Lanza, apr\u00e8s quoi j\u2019exposerai un point \u00e9pineux de la r\u00e9ception ancienne et moderne (la question des hom\u00e9om\u00e8res), qui a particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ress\u00e9 Lanza et au sujet duquel il a une th\u00e8se forte qu\u2019il convient d\u2019examiner. [introduction p. 51-52]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8fCGIzpqB6IdoMr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":238,"full_name":"Louguet, Claire ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":457,"full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1373,"section_of":340,"pages":"51-84","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":340,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. Po\u00e9sie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rousseau2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","abstract":"Figure critique majeure des \u00e9tudes de philologie classique en Italie, Diego Lanza a renouvel\u00e9 en profondeur l'approche des \u0153uvres de la litt\u00e9rature grecque ancienne. Ses travaux conjuguent un int\u00e9r\u00eat, partiellement h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la philologie historique, pour l'histoire de la tradition, avec une analyse, inspir\u00e9e notamment de Marx et de Gramsci, de la fonction des textes anciens comme instruments de m\u00e9diation id\u00e9ologique, interrogeant ainsi conjointement le pass\u00e9 et le pr\u00e9sent des appropriations culturelles. Les probl\u00e9matiques de l'anthropologie occupent une place privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e dans sa lecture de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, mais leur espace de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence n\u2019est pas celui de l\u2019anthropologie structurale, de la psychologie historique ou de la critique symbolique de l\u2019\u00e9cole fran\u00e7aise. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t l\u2019\u00e9tude du folklore, o\u00f9 l\u2019analyse de la culture populaire est orient\u00e9e par un int\u00e9r\u00eat sp\u00e9cifique pour les antagonismes qui la structurent. Les essais r\u00e9unis dans ce volume reviennent sur les objets auxquels Diego Lanza s\u2019est int\u00e9ress\u00e9 \u2013 po\u00e9sie archa\u00efque (Hom\u00e8re), th\u00e9\u00e2tre classique (Euripide, Aristophane), philosophie \u00ab pr\u00e9socratique \u00bb et classique (Anaxagore, Aristote), histoire de la philologie \u2013 et dans la diversit\u00e9 de leurs points de vue, esquissent un bilan des aspects les plus significatifs d\u2019une \u0153uvre scientifique originale et stimulante.\r\n[author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LY1f6edLjdTkqq3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":340,"pubplace":"Lille","publisher":"Presses universitaires du Septentrion","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

La teoria dell’intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teoﬁlo Zimara, 2013
By: De Carli, Manuel

Title	La teoria dell’intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teoﬁlo Zimara
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2013
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	De Carli, Manuel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper describes the doctrine of the intellect developed by the physician and philosopher Teofilo Zimara in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, published in 1584 by the Giuntas, identifying the Platonism and Neoplatonism of Simplicius as the main features of his psychology. The essay then points out how Zimara's speculative suggestion fully inscribes itself in the disputes between Simplicianists and Averroists, which erupted within the School of Padua and then spread to other centers of culture of that time, forming an essential element of Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century. [author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mNF1lCUefItzKac

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1475","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1475,"authors_free":[{"id":2556,"entry_id":1475,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":545,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"De Carli, Manuel","free_first_name":"Manuel","free_last_name":"De Carli","norm_person":{"id":545,"first_name":"Manuel","last_name":"De Carli","full_name":"De Carli, Manuel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara","main_title":{"title":"La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara"},"abstract":"This paper describes the doctrine of the intellect developed by the physician and philosopher Teofilo Zimara in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, published in 1584 by the Giuntas, identifying the Platonism and Neoplatonism of Simplicius as the main features of his psychology. The essay then points out how Zimara's speculative suggestion fully inscribes itself in the disputes between Simplicianists and Averroists, which erupted within the School of Padua and then spread to other centers of culture of that time, forming an essential element of Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mNF1lCUefItzKac","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":545,"full_name":"De Carli, Manuel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1475,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rinascimento meridionale","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"123-140"}},"sort":[2013]}

‘Simplicius.’ On Aristotle, On the Soul 3.6–13, 2013
By: Simplicius

Title	‘Simplicius.’ On Aristotle, On the Soul 3.6–13
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	Bristol - London
Publisher	Bristol Classical Press
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Steel, Carlos(Steel, Carlos ) , Ritups, Arnis(Ritups, Arnis) ,

This is the fourth and last volume of the translation in this series of the commentary on Aristotle On the Soul, wrongly attributed to Simplicius. Its real author, most probably Priscian of Lydia, proves in this work to be an original philosopher who deserves to be studied, not only because of his detailed explanation of an often difficult Aristotelian text, but also because of his own psychological doctrines. In chapter six the author discusses the objects of the intellect. In chapters seven to eight he sees Aristotle as moving towards practical intellect, thus preparing the way for discussing what initiates movement in chapters nine to 11. His interpretation offers a brilliant investigation of practical reasoning and of the interaction between desire and cognition from the level of perception to the intellect. In the commentator's view, Aristotle in the last chapters (12-13) investigates the different type of organic bodies corresponding to the different forms of life (vegetative and sensory, from the most basic, touch, to the most complex).

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/W0nXXZcYBUmaS3B

{"_index":"sire","_id":"211","_score":null,"_source":{"id":211,"authors_free":[{"id":269,"entry_id":211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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":270,"entry_id":211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":73,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Ritups, Arnis","free_first_name":"Arnis","free_last_name":"Ritups","norm_person":{"id":73,"first_name":"Arnis","last_name":"Ritups","full_name":"Ritups, Arnis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1883,"entry_id":211,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u2018Simplicius.\u2019 On Aristotle, On the Soul 3.6\u201313","main_title":{"title":"\u2018Simplicius.\u2019 On Aristotle, On the Soul 3.6\u201313"},"abstract":"This is the fourth and last volume of the translation in this series of the commentary on Aristotle On the Soul, wrongly attributed to Simplicius. Its real author, most probably Priscian of Lydia, proves in this work to be an original philosopher who deserves to be studied, not only because of his detailed explanation of an often difficult Aristotelian text, but also because of his own psychological doctrines. In chapter six the author discusses the objects of the intellect. In chapters seven to eight he sees Aristotle as moving towards practical intellect, thus preparing the way for discussing what initiates movement in chapters nine to 11. His interpretation offers a brilliant investigation of practical reasoning and of the interaction between desire and cognition from the level of perception to the intellect. In the commentator's view, Aristotle in the last chapters (12-13) investigates the different type of organic bodies corresponding to the different forms of life (vegetative and sensory, from the most basic, touch, to the most complex).","btype":4,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/W0nXXZcYBUmaS3B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":73,"full_name":"Ritups, Arnis","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":211,"pubplace":"Bristol - London","publisher":"Bristol Classical Press","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements, 2012
By: Opsomer, Jan

Title	Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	23
Pages	65-106
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Late ancient Platonists discuss two theories in which geometric entities explain natural phenomena : the regular polyhedra of geometric atomism and the eccentrics and epicycles of astronomy. Simplicius explicitly compares the status of the first to the hypotheses of the astronomers. The point of comparison is the fallibility of both theories, not the (lack of) reality of the entities postulated. Simplicius has strong realist commitments as far as astronomy is concerned. Syrianus and Proclus too do not consider the polyhedra as devoid of physical reality. Proclus rejects epicycles and eccentrics, but accepts the reality of material homocentric spheres, moved by their own souls. The spheres move the astral objects contained in them, which, however, add motions caused by their own souls. The epicyclical and eccntric hypotheses are useful, as they help us to understand the complex motions resulting from the interplay of spherical motions and volitional motions of the planets. Yet astral souls do not think in accordance with human theoretical constructs, but rather grasp the complex patterns of their motions directly. Our understanding of astronomy depends upon our own cognition of intelligible patterns and their mathematical images. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NrliupadtaqUhIR

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1094","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1094,"authors_free":[{"id":1652,"entry_id":1094,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements","main_title":{"title":"Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements"},"abstract":"Late ancient Platonists discuss two theories in which geometric entities explain natural \r\nphenomena : the regular polyhedra of geometric atomism and the eccentrics and epicycles \r\nof astronomy. Simplicius explicitly compares the status of the first to the hypotheses of the astronomers. The point of comparison is the fallibility of both theories, not the (lack of) reality \r\nof the entities postulated. Simplicius has strong realist commitments as far as astronomy is concerned. Syrianus and Proclus too do not consider the polyhedra as devoid of physical reality. Proclus rejects epicycles and eccentrics, but accepts the reality of material homocentric spheres, moved by their own souls. The spheres move the astral objects contained in them, which, however, add motions caused by their own souls. The epicyclical and eccntric hypotheses are useful, as they help us to understand the complex motions resulting from the interplay of spherical motions and volitional motions of the planets. Yet astral souls do not think in accordance with human theoretical constructs, but rather grasp the complex patterns of their motions directly. Our understanding of astronomy depends upon our own cognition of intelligible patterns and their mathematical images. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NrliupadtaqUhIR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1094,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"23","issue":"","pages":"65-106"}},"sort":[2012]}

In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties, 2012
By: Opsomer, Jan, Wilberding, James (Ed.), Horn, Christoph (Ed.)

Title	In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Pages	147-173
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)	Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph
Translator(s)

Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus—more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls ‘necessity’. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body. The introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings. Prior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichnê, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such. In order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (dieschêmatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle—that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)—and the right isosceles triangle—a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called ‘surfaces’ (epiphaneia) by the commentators. For the sake of convenience, I shall call ‘surfaces’ the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call ‘triangles’. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.) Six triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube). These polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs): The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire. The octahedron that of air. The icosahedron that of water. The hexahedron that of earth. This model of Plato’s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels—one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are ‘even higher principles’ that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1095","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1095,"authors_free":[{"id":1653,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1654,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1655,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties","main_title":{"title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"},"abstract":"Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus\u2014more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls \u2018necessity\u2019. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body.\r\n\r\nThe introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings.\r\n\r\nPrior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichn\u00ea, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such.\r\n\r\nIn order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (diesch\u00eamatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle\u2014that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)\u2014and the right isosceles triangle\u2014a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called \u2018surfaces\u2019 (epiphaneia) by the commentators.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of convenience, I shall call \u2018surfaces\u2019 the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call \u2018triangles\u2019. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.)\r\n\r\nSix triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube).\r\n\r\nThese polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs):\r\n\r\n The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire.\r\n The octahedron that of air.\r\n The icosahedron that of water.\r\n The hexahedron that of earth.\r\n\r\nThis model of Plato\u2019s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels\u2014one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are \u2018even higher principles\u2019 that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1095,"section_of":299,"pages":"147-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Un grief antichrétien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en théologie, 2012
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Perrot, Arnaud (Ed.)

Title	Un grief antichrétien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en théologie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2012
Published in	Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive
Pages	161-197
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Perrot, Arnaud
Translator(s)

Concluons brièvement. Le dossier de textes que nous venons d’étudier montre que Proclus n’appréhendait la réalité de son temps, et les chrétiens qui l’entouraient, qu’avec des schèmes de pensée directement issus de la science philosophique platonicienne construite et enseignée par lui-même et par les philosophes de son école. La théorie de l’âme qui lui permet de comprendre l’état d’«ignorance» dans lequel se trouvent les chrétiens est directement issue du Livre IV de la République de Platon. La doctrine de l’oubli (lêthê) est elle aussi platonicienne et permet de situer les âmes ignorantes des chrétiens, incarnées et individuelles, dans l’horizon indépassable qui est le leur – le monde de la génésis. La théorie proclienne de la causalité, qui lie la puissance de la Cause à l’extension de ses effets, renforce l’explication par «l’oubli». Et le monothéisme rudimentaire des chrétiens prend son sens par rapport à (et en décalage avec) l’architecture majestueuse de la Théologie platonicienne, qui déploie les ordres divins à partir de l’Un-Bien. Ce monothéisme est comme un lambeau appauvri d’une science théologique à laquelle les chrétiens sont étrangers, tout comme leur est inaccessible l’expérience ultime de la vision unitive. Cette perception de la réalité peut sans doute être mise en relation avec une attitude politique prudente de Proclus, qui ne cherchait pas à provoquer les chrétiens en dépit des difficultés, ainsi que l’a justement suggéré H. D. Saffrey. Au début du VIe siècle, les choses changent, la situation des païens s’assombrit encore – en dépit, ou à cause, de la restauration de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Athènes et de l’enseignement philosophique sous la direction de Damascius – et le ton se durcit : le panorama des âges de l’Humanité, dans la Vie d’Isidore de Damascius, qui ouvrait cette enquête, laisse éclater une indignation véhémente contre l’Empire chrétien, qui se retrouve ensuite chez Simplicius. L’on sait ce que fut l’édit de Justinien en 529, et quelles furent ses conséquences. Mais s’il est une chose qui n’a pas varié, c’est probablement la conscience hautaine que les derniers néoplatoniciens avaient d’être les détenteurs de l’authentique science théologique. Étaient-ils complètement inconscients de la grandeur doctrinale et spirituelle, et de l’ampleur quantitative, de la littérature chrétienne des premiers siècles ? Peut-on penser qu’ils ignoraient vraiment les œuvres de leurs adversaires ? Nous n’entendons que leur silence... [conclusion p. 196-197]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/C6ajOBbEqvD83jH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1143","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1143,"authors_free":[{"id":1716,"entry_id":1143,"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":2048,"entry_id":1143,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":212,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Perrot","norm_person":{"id":212,"first_name":"Arnaud","last_name":"Perrot","full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135696276","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"Concluons bri\u00e8vement. Le dossier de textes que nous venons d\u2019\u00e9tudier montre que Proclus n\u2019appr\u00e9hendait la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de son temps, et les chr\u00e9tiens qui l\u2019entouraient, qu\u2019avec des sch\u00e8mes de pens\u00e9e directement issus de la science philosophique platonicienne construite et enseign\u00e9e par lui-m\u00eame et par les philosophes de son \u00e9cole. La th\u00e9orie de l\u2019\u00e2me qui lui permet de comprendre l\u2019\u00e9tat d\u2019\u00abignorance\u00bb dans lequel se trouvent les chr\u00e9tiens est directement issue du Livre IV de la R\u00e9publique de Platon. La doctrine de l\u2019oubli (l\u00eath\u00ea) est elle aussi platonicienne et permet de situer les \u00e2mes ignorantes des chr\u00e9tiens, incarn\u00e9es et individuelles, dans l\u2019horizon ind\u00e9passable qui est le leur \u2013 le monde de la g\u00e9n\u00e9sis. La th\u00e9orie proclienne de la causalit\u00e9, qui lie la puissance de la Cause \u00e0 l\u2019extension de ses effets, renforce l\u2019explication par \u00abl\u2019oubli\u00bb. Et le monoth\u00e9isme rudimentaire des chr\u00e9tiens prend son sens par rapport \u00e0 (et en d\u00e9calage avec) l\u2019architecture majestueuse de la Th\u00e9ologie platonicienne, qui d\u00e9ploie les ordres divins \u00e0 partir de l\u2019Un-Bien. Ce monoth\u00e9isme est comme un lambeau appauvri d\u2019une science th\u00e9ologique \u00e0 laquelle les chr\u00e9tiens sont \u00e9trangers, tout comme leur est inaccessible l\u2019exp\u00e9rience ultime de la vision unitive.\r\n\r\nCette perception de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 peut sans doute \u00eatre mise en relation avec une attitude politique prudente de Proclus, qui ne cherchait pas \u00e0 provoquer les chr\u00e9tiens en d\u00e9pit des difficult\u00e9s, ainsi que l\u2019a justement sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 H. D. Saffrey. Au d\u00e9but du VIe si\u00e8cle, les choses changent, la situation des pa\u00efens s\u2019assombrit encore \u2013 en d\u00e9pit, ou \u00e0 cause, de la restauration de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et de l\u2019enseignement philosophique sous la direction de Damascius \u2013 et le ton se durcit : le panorama des \u00e2ges de l\u2019Humanit\u00e9, dans la Vie d\u2019Isidore de Damascius, qui ouvrait cette enqu\u00eate, laisse \u00e9clater une indignation v\u00e9h\u00e9mente contre l\u2019Empire chr\u00e9tien, qui se retrouve ensuite chez Simplicius. L\u2019on sait ce que fut l\u2019\u00e9dit de Justinien en 529, et quelles furent ses cons\u00e9quences.\r\n\r\nMais s\u2019il est une chose qui n\u2019a pas vari\u00e9, c\u2019est probablement la conscience hautaine que les derniers n\u00e9oplatoniciens avaient d\u2019\u00eatre les d\u00e9tenteurs de l\u2019authentique science th\u00e9ologique. \u00c9taient-ils compl\u00e8tement inconscients de la grandeur doctrinale et spirituelle, et de l\u2019ampleur quantitative, de la litt\u00e9rature chr\u00e9tienne des premiers si\u00e8cles ? Peut-on penser qu\u2019ils ignoraient vraiment les \u0153uvres de leurs adversaires ? Nous n\u2019entendons que leur silence... [conclusion p. 196-197]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/C6ajOBbEqvD83jH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":212,"full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1143,"section_of":358,"pages":"161-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":358,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les chr\u00e9tiens et l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme: identit\u00e9s religieuses et culture grecque dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Perrot2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Les modernes ont souvent oppos\u00e9 les chr\u00e9tiens \u00e0 l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme. Les auteurs antiques eux-m\u00eames \u2013 qu\u2019ils soient \u00ab Grecs \u00bb ou chr\u00e9tiens \u2013 semblent avoir th\u00e9matis\u00e9 leur antagonisme. Que vaut cette ligne de fracture ? Qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019\u00eatre Grec \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 ? Pour quelles raisons un chr\u00e9tien hell\u00e9nophone, pass\u00e9 par les \u00e9coles de l\u2019Empire et nourri de paideia, ne saurait-il \u00eatre un Grec, au m\u00eame titre que les autres ? Qui donne, qui revendique et qui refuse ce titre \u2013 et pourquoi ? Les termes dans lesquels le sujet est pos\u00e9 ne sont ni simples, ni neutres. La notion d\u2019hell\u00e9nisme, qui peut para\u00eetre moins confessionnelle que celle de \u00ab paganisme \u00bb, est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 marqu\u00e9e par les conflits religieux des \u00e9poques hell\u00e9nistique et tardive. Ce sont, on le montrera, les besoins de l\u2019autod\u00e9finition et l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la pol\u00e9mique contre l\u2019Autre qui conditionnent les rapports entre les chr\u00e9tiens et \u00ab l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00bb. Cet ouvrage porte une attention particuli\u00e8re au but poursuivi par les auteurs anciens dans chacune de leurs d\u00e9clarations identitaires, entre langue commune et particularisme religieux. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9Fs2iPPdApqIvv7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":358,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Rue d'Ulm","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the "Categories", 2012
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the "Categories"
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume	55
Issue	1
Pages	69-108
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Through this sketch of the evidence, I hope to have suggested that there is, in any case, more to the bipartite theory than a compendious treatment or compression of the tripartite material by Porphyry, and that attention should be drawn to it as a separate and distinct layer of the tradition. I have also explored some of the ways in which both layers may be seen as predating Porphyry, while Porphyry’s approach to the Categories in the shorter commentary could be seen as building on an earlier source. As to our first mystery—the role of the Categories in the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, both first-century and Neoplatonic—I would like to offer a few concluding reflections on the theory itself. To be significant, a verbal expression must have an extension that qualifies as ὄν (Porph. In Cat. 90,30-91,12 – T17; as this passage shows, the extension might be infinite). If Busse is right to read ἕκαστον κατὰ ἀριθμὸν σημαίνει <ἕν> τῶν ὄντων (“each numerically distinct expression signifies one of the beings”) around 58,5-15 (T9), I think we are not merely dealing with the Stoic view that there are “somethings” that do not subsist—occasionally compared to Meinong's distinction of bestehen and existieren as represented by Bertrand Russell—but an even stronger view, akin to Owen’s positive reading of the Parmenidean maxim that “what can be spoken and thought must exist” (B2). That sort of intuition, though pre-Platonic, was always part of the Platonic tradition. Perhaps it is not so surprising, then, that we find friendly Platonist and Neopythagorean treatments in the earliest layer of the exegetical stratigraphy of the Categories, and that Porphyry should find it a suitable cornerstone around which to build later Neoplatonic ontology. The bipartite theory that I have described looks like an extensional theory of signification—as Porphyry’s language in T17 might seem to suggest, the meaning of a predicate F amounts to the set of objects said to be F. We might call this kind of view nominalist, and not very much in the spirit of Platonism as we usually conceive it. But there are also examples in the Arabic tradition that draw on the Posterior Analytics for a kind of Platonic view about the existence of eternal natures. For example (see Adamson, “Knowledge of Universals”), the tenth-century logician Ibn ʿAdī maintained that (1) terms in syllogisms directly refer (have some existing extension), (2) following the Post. An., demonstrative knowledge is never of the transient, unlimited particulars, and (3) nonetheless, demonstrative knowledge occurs; from these points, he was led to maintain that there are eternal, unchanging objects of reference. If this conclusion could be referred to as essential Platonism, then as Adamson puts it, “to some extent, Aristotle’s own words invited the Platonizing.” It seems to me compatible with Alexander’s view, if I understand his De anima rightly (especially around p. 90), that there are eternal natures that may or may not be predicated of many particulars, a view about which Sharples has also written. My suggestion here, then, is just that the interpretation of the Organon that facilitates this line of thinking goes back to a very early layer of commentary on the Categories. Modern philosophy arguably also provides examples of how a theory of direct reference can inspire different flavors of almost Platonic realism, especially when the observable infinity of particular objects of acquaintance is coupled with the observed feasibility of human knowledge. Bertrand Russell in 1945 criticized Porphyry’s work on the Categories (which he had, I suppose, indirectly) by wielding the same weapons that had served against his interpretation of Meinong in 1904. Russell credited Porphyry’s alleged misreading of Aristotle with the excessively “metaphysical” temper of subsequent logic (HWP 1945:472), including entrenched realism about genera and species and “endless bad metaphysics about unity” (198). But it was the early Russell himself who, in 1903, made every denoting phrase directly denote an existing entity and argued that “anything that can be mentioned is sure to be a term...” that has unity and in some sense exists (43). In fact, Russell was led by his pre-1905 account of denoting to frame the problem of knowledge in terms strikingly similar to our bipartite theory (see T27a): the “inmost secret of our power to deal with infinity” lies in the fact that “an infinitely complex object... can certainly not be manipulated by the human intelligence; but infinite collections, owing to the notion of denoting, can be manipulated.” Russell later eliminated (what he took to be) the Meinongian plurality of denoted beings implied by his own earlier logical realism, using his theory of descriptions as an instrument; thus the later Russell, who still maintained that “we could not acquire knowledge of absolute particulars,” came to hold that our words denote just adjectives or relations (T27b). Porphyry—and arguably many Peripatetics before him—took an analogous temperament in precisely the opposite direction. Both held, in their own way, that an ideal language would carve nature at the joints; and the semantic building blocks of Porphyry's ideal language, as I have suggested here, were rooted in a long tradition of Peripatetic thought about what Aristotle’s Categories categorize, and in particular how unity could be imposed on plurality to make sense of the world. But whereas Russell’s language ultimately aimed to talk about, and gain certainty about, a Moorean world of common sense and acquaintance, Porphyry’s categorical language aimed to talk about, and gain certainty about, the world of the Enneads and the existence of some eternal natures. Peripatetic and Porphyrian logicism was not Russell’s, and a similar interest in the ontological implications of their logical apparatus led to very different results at the dawn of analytic philosophy and at the dawn of Neoplatonism: by dispensing with several components of Aristotle’s theory of predication that Porphyry had held to be central, Russell had toppled the giant from whose shoulders Porphyry had spied (and at any rate hoped to teach his pupils to spy) Plotinus’s ontology. [conclusion p. 90-92]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0V3z3uBVFDC712w

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1148","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1148,"authors_free":[{"id":1723,"entry_id":1148,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","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":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"Through this sketch of the evidence, I hope to have suggested that there is, in any case, more to the bipartite theory than a compendious treatment or compression of the tripartite material by Porphyry, and that attention should be drawn to it as a separate and distinct layer of the tradition. I have also explored some of the ways in which both layers may be seen as predating Porphyry, while Porphyry\u2019s approach to the Categories in the shorter commentary could be seen as building on an earlier source.\r\nAs to our first mystery\u2014the role of the Categories in the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, both first-century and Neoplatonic\u2014I would like to offer a few concluding reflections on the theory itself. To be significant, a verbal expression must have an extension that qualifies as \u1f44\u03bd (Porph. In Cat. 90,30-91,12 \u2013 T17; as this passage shows, the extension might be infinite). If Busse is right to read \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 <\u1f15\u03bd> \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (\u201ceach numerically distinct expression signifies one of the beings\u201d) around 58,5-15 (T9), I think we are not merely dealing with the Stoic view that there are \u201csomethings\u201d that do not subsist\u2014occasionally compared to Meinong's distinction of bestehen and existieren as represented by Bertrand Russell\u2014but an even stronger view, akin to Owen\u2019s positive reading of the Parmenidean maxim that \u201cwhat can be spoken and thought must exist\u201d (B2). That sort of intuition, though pre-Platonic, was always part of the Platonic tradition.\r\nPerhaps it is not so surprising, then, that we find friendly Platonist and Neopythagorean treatments in the earliest layer of the exegetical stratigraphy of the Categories, and that Porphyry should find it a suitable cornerstone around which to build later Neoplatonic ontology.\r\nThe bipartite theory that I have described looks like an extensional theory of signification\u2014as Porphyry\u2019s language in T17 might seem to suggest, the meaning of a predicate F amounts to the set of objects said to be F. We might call this kind of view nominalist, and not very much in the spirit of Platonism as we usually conceive it. But there are also examples in the Arabic tradition that draw on the Posterior Analytics for a kind of Platonic view about the existence of eternal natures.\r\nFor example (see Adamson, \u201cKnowledge of Universals\u201d), the tenth-century logician Ibn \u02bfAd\u012b maintained that (1) terms in syllogisms directly refer (have some existing extension), (2) following the Post. An., demonstrative knowledge is never of the transient, unlimited particulars, and (3) nonetheless, demonstrative knowledge occurs; from these points, he was led to maintain that there are eternal, unchanging objects of reference. If this conclusion could be referred to as essential Platonism, then as Adamson puts it, \u201cto some extent, Aristotle\u2019s own words invited the Platonizing.\u201d\r\nIt seems to me compatible with Alexander\u2019s view, if I understand his De anima rightly (especially around p. 90), that there are eternal natures that may or may not be predicated of many particulars, a view about which Sharples has also written. My suggestion here, then, is just that the interpretation of the Organon that facilitates this line of thinking goes back to a very early layer of commentary on the Categories.\r\nModern philosophy arguably also provides examples of how a theory of direct reference can inspire different flavors of almost Platonic realism, especially when the observable infinity of particular objects of acquaintance is coupled with the observed feasibility of human knowledge.\r\nBertrand Russell in 1945 criticized Porphyry\u2019s work on the Categories (which he had, I suppose, indirectly) by wielding the same weapons that had served against his interpretation of Meinong in 1904. Russell credited Porphyry\u2019s alleged misreading of Aristotle with the excessively \u201cmetaphysical\u201d temper of subsequent logic (HWP 1945:472), including entrenched realism about genera and species and \u201cendless bad metaphysics about unity\u201d (198).\r\nBut it was the early Russell himself who, in 1903, made every denoting phrase directly denote an existing entity and argued that \u201canything that can be mentioned is sure to be a term...\u201d that has unity and in some sense exists (43).\r\nIn fact, Russell was led by his pre-1905 account of denoting to frame the problem of knowledge in terms strikingly similar to our bipartite theory (see T27a): the \u201cinmost secret of our power to deal with infinity\u201d lies in the fact that \u201can infinitely complex object... can certainly not be manipulated by the human intelligence; but infinite collections, owing to the notion of denoting, can be manipulated.\u201d\r\nRussell later eliminated (what he took to be) the Meinongian plurality of denoted beings implied by his own earlier logical realism, using his theory of descriptions as an instrument; thus the later Russell, who still maintained that \u201cwe could not acquire knowledge of absolute particulars,\u201d came to hold that our words denote just adjectives or relations (T27b).\r\nPorphyry\u2014and arguably many Peripatetics before him\u2014took an analogous temperament in precisely the opposite direction. Both held, in their own way, that an ideal language would carve nature at the joints; and the semantic building blocks of Porphyry's ideal language, as I have suggested here, were rooted in a long tradition of Peripatetic thought about what Aristotle\u2019s Categories categorize, and in particular how unity could be imposed on plurality to make sense of the world.\r\nBut whereas Russell\u2019s language ultimately aimed to talk about, and gain certainty about, a Moorean world of common sense and acquaintance, Porphyry\u2019s categorical language aimed to talk about, and gain certainty about, the world of the Enneads and the existence of some eternal natures.\r\nPeripatetic and Porphyrian logicism was not Russell\u2019s, and a similar interest in the ontological implications of their logical apparatus led to very different results at the dawn of analytic philosophy and at the dawn of Neoplatonism: by dispensing with several components of Aristotle\u2019s theory of predication that Porphyry had held to be central, Russell had toppled the giant from whose shoulders Porphyry had spied (and at any rate hoped to teach his pupils to spy) Plotinus\u2019s ontology.\r\n [conclusion p. 90-92]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0V3z3uBVFDC712w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1148,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"69-108"}},"sort":[2012]}

Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs, 2012
By: Harari, Orna

Title	Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Volume	43
Pages	366-375
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Harari, Orna
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this study I examine the sole detailed evidence we have for Simplicius’ view of sign-based, i.e. tekmeriodic proofs, thereby questing the widespread assumption that he espouses Phiioponus' account of these proofs. Specifically. I argue that (1) it is more plausible to understand the signs on which Simplicius bases his tekmeriodic proofs as refutable, (2) he grounds the epistemic worth of these proofs in the evidential strength of their premises rather than in their validity, (3) unlike Phiioponus, he conceives of the argument that leads to the principles of natural philosophy, which tekmeriodic proofs are aimed to prove, as inductive, and (4) he evaluates these proofs against Plato’s un-hypothetical science, hence denying natural philosophy the autonomy from metaphysics that Phiioponus’ account of tekmeriodic proofs grants. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kTidRDQtummkQxv

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1152","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1152,"authors_free":[{"id":1727,"entry_id":1152,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs"},"abstract":"In this study I examine the sole detailed evidence we have for Simplicius\u2019 view of sign-based, i.e. tekmeriodic proofs, thereby questing the widespread assumption that he espouses Phiioponus' account of these proofs. Specifically. I argue that (1) it is more plausible to understand the signs on which Simplicius bases his tekmeriodic proofs as refutable, (2) he grounds the epistemic worth of these proofs in the evidential strength of their premises rather than in their validity, (3) unlike Phiioponus, he conceives of the argu\u00adment that leads to the principles of natural philosophy, which tekmeriodic proofs are aimed to prove, as inductive, and (4) he evaluates these proofs against Plato\u2019s un-hypothetical science, hence denying natural philosophy the autonomy from metaphysics that Phiioponus\u2019 account of tekmeriodic proofs grants. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kTidRDQtummkQxv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1152,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"366-375"}},"sort":[2012]}

Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul, 2012
By: Menn, Stephen, Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Wilberding, James (Ed.)

Title	Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Pages	44-67
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Wilberding, James
Translator(s)

A central puzzle of recent scholarship on late Neoplatonism has been to understand how what Richard Sorabji has called a ‘perfectly crazy position', the thesis of die harmony of Plato and Aristode, nonetheless ‘proved philosophically fruitful' — whereas, for instance, the same philosophers' perfectly crazy thesis of the harmony of Plato and Homer did not. In this chapter, starting from Hermias' commentary on a passage of the Phaedrus which poses a difficulty for harmonization, I hope to shed some light on what the late Neoplatonists were asserting when they asserted the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, in general or on some particular issue (here the immortality of soul); on why they were inclined to make such assertions o f harmony, and what they saw themselves as needing to do in order to defend them: and on why,in the process of defending them, they were led to conceptual clarifications which were in some cases of longstanding benefit to the conceptual stoic of philosophy. I will point to a sur prising case of such a conceptual benefit resulting from Neoplatonic interpretations of this Pimdtus passage and its parallels in the Timaeus. While my central example will be from Hermias, the themes I am interested in ate not peculiar to him, and I will also make use of other late Neoplatonic authors, especially Proclus. Hermias, and Produs, to recall, were both students of Syrianus;at one point in Hermias' commentary 'our companion Proclus' raises an aporia, and ‘the philosopher'— that is, ‘the professor — replies (92,6-10 Couvrcur), which seems to imply that the commentary in general was drawn by Hermias from Syrianus lectures. [Introduction, pp. 44 f.]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EgP6g0IaubwrLcL

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1164","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1164,"authors_free":[{"id":1742,"entry_id":1164,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2081,"entry_id":1164,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2082,"entry_id":1164,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul","main_title":{"title":"Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul"},"abstract":"A central puzzle of recent scholarship on late Neoplatonism has been to understand how what Richard Sorabji has called a \u2018perfectly crazy position', the thesis of die harmony of Plato and Aristode, nonetheless \u2018proved philosophically fruitful' \u2014 \r\nwhereas, for instance, the same philosophers' perfectly crazy thesis of the harmony of Plato and Homer did not. In this chapter, starting from Hermias' commentary on a passage of the Phaedrus which poses a difficulty for harmonization, I hope to shed some light on what the late Neoplatonists were asserting when they asserted the harmony \r\nof Plato and Aristotle, in general or on some particular issue (here the immortality of soul); on why they were inclined to make such assertions o f harmony, and what they saw themselves as needing to do in order to defend them: and on why,in the process of defending them, they were led to conceptual clarifications which were in some cases of longstanding benefit to the conceptual stoic of philosophy. I will point to a sur\u00ad\r\nprising case of such a conceptual benefit resulting from Neoplatonic interpretations of this Pimdtus passage and its parallels in the Timaeus. While my central example will be from Hermias, the themes I am interested in ate not peculiar to him, and I will also \r\nmake use of other late Neoplatonic authors, especially Proclus. Hermias, and Produs, to recall, were both students of Syrianus;at one point in Hermias' commentary 'our companion Proclus' raises an aporia, and \u2018the philosopher'\u2014 that is, \u2018the professor \u2014 replies (92,6-10 Couvrcur), which seems to imply that the commentary in general was drawn by Hermias from Syrianus lectures. [Introduction, pp. 44 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EgP6g0IaubwrLcL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1164,"section_of":299,"pages":"44-67","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Alexander on Physics 2.9, 2012
By: Sharples, Robert W.

Title	Alexander on Physics 2.9
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume	55
Issue	1
Pages	19-30
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius’s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included—and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus’s commentary thereon, and with Alexander’s discussion in some of the Quaestiones; the present paper, with Simplicius’s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9. Alexander’s GC commentary and the relevant part of his Physics commentary are lost. The text that will chiefly concern us is (3) (2) in the appendix, where Simplicius says: "For my part, I do not understand why Alexander says that unqualified necessity excludes what is for the sake of something." Perhaps indeed he does understand why Alexander says this, and this is a disingenuous way of introducing a problem; but the problem may be real nonetheless. If my story has a moral, it is, I suppose, that those who have an interest in Alexander should be more proactive than I confess I have myself been in looking up the later commentaries on passages of Aristotle that are of interest in the context of Alexander, in order to see whether Alexander is recorded as having had interesting comments to make. Or, if that is a counsel of perfection, I think it shows that we need a collection of the reports of Alexander by name in later Greek commentaries on the Physics, rather like Andrea Rescigno’s recent edition of the fragments of the De Caelo commentary. We already have the fragments of the Physics commentary preserved in Arabic, and the fragments in Greek identified by Marwan Rashed; there may be scope, if copyright and other issues can be overcome, for a compendium assembling all this material in the order of the passages of Aristotle commented upon. This would indeed in a way be assistance for the lazy, making nothing available that individual scholars could not find for themselves in published sources, but it might be useful nonetheless. In Physics 2.9, Aristotle continues his polemic against those who explain nature in terms of necessitating material interactions, arguing that necessity is present in all things that have goal-directedness, if I may so translate “the for-the-sake-of-something,” but that the necessity of matter is not the cause or explanation of what comes about. There is, by the way, in my view a systematic ambiguity in the terminology commonly used here; necessity can be conditional either on a future goal or on some past event, but the custom has developed of using “conditional” or “hypothetical” necessity to indicate that which relates to the future, “absolute” to indicate that which is conditional on past events—presumably because there is no longer anything hypothetical about these. But, especially in the ancient Peripatetic context where, as Patzig pointed out, qualifications attach to predicates rather than to whole propositions, this could be misleading from the point of view of logical analysis. Building a house necessarily requires bricks; but the fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. (It could be an explanation of why you have a brick house, or more strictly of why, given that you have a house, it is a brick one; but that is a different point.) To be sure, Aristotle’s argument in 2.9 is open to challenge in that he takes his examples from human goal-directed activity, and the extrapolation from these to natural processes is open to question. David Sedley well suggests that the self-building wall may be a parody of atomist cosmogony. A human being requires human flesh and human bones; but, Aristotle’s view would seem to imply, human flesh does not self-assemble into a human being—perhaps because it cannot even be human flesh, except homonymously, if it is not part of a human being. There are well-known problems here about how the final cause of embryonic development can also be the efficient cause, but I do not propose to pursue them now. For, more important in the present context, is a distinction indicated by the example I have just used. The fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. Why not? Well, presumably, because sitting looking at the pile of bricks will not give you a house; you, or the builder, need to do something with them. Bricks not only do not explain the coming-to-be of a brick house (let us call this “thesis A”); they do not necessarily lead to it, either (let us call this “thesis B”). In more formal language, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For the Presocratic natural philosophers whom Aristotle is attacking, on the other hand, material interactions are both sufficient conditions for, and explanations of, natural phenomena. Normally, an explanation will be a sufficient condition, or at least that one of a number of jointly sufficient conditions that is relevant in the explanatory context. Consequently, to say that material actions may necessitate, i.e., may be sufficient for, but may not explain, some event, or in the contexts with which we are concerned the coming-to-be of something, is to raise the specter of over-determination. If natural comings-to-be are necessitated by matter and its interactions—what some call “absolute” necessity—is there any room left in which to argue that they are explained by the purposes or goals for which they are necessary means? [introduction p. 19-20]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RKYRiSGUGVV8cTg

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1172","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1172,"authors_free":[{"id":1747,"entry_id":1172,"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":"","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":"Alexander on Physics 2.9","main_title":{"title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9"},"abstract":"I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius\u2019s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included\u2014and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus\u2019s commentary thereon, and with Alexander\u2019s discussion in some of the Quaestiones; the present paper, with Simplicius\u2019s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9. Alexander\u2019s GC commentary and the relevant part of his Physics commentary are lost. The text that will chiefly concern us is (3) (2) in the appendix, where Simplicius says:\r\n\r\n \"For my part, I do not understand why Alexander says that unqualified necessity excludes what is for the sake of something.\"\r\n\r\nPerhaps indeed he does understand why Alexander says this, and this is a disingenuous way of introducing a problem; but the problem may be real nonetheless.\r\n\r\nIf my story has a moral, it is, I suppose, that those who have an interest in Alexander should be more proactive than I confess I have myself been in looking up the later commentaries on passages of Aristotle that are of interest in the context of Alexander, in order to see whether Alexander is recorded as having had interesting comments to make. Or, if that is a counsel of perfection, I think it shows that we need a collection of the reports of Alexander by name in later Greek commentaries on the Physics, rather like Andrea Rescigno\u2019s recent edition of the fragments of the De Caelo commentary. We already have the fragments of the Physics commentary preserved in Arabic, and the fragments in Greek identified by Marwan Rashed; there may be scope, if copyright and other issues can be overcome, for a compendium assembling all this material in the order of the passages of Aristotle commented upon. This would indeed in a way be assistance for the lazy, making nothing available that individual scholars could not find for themselves in published sources, but it might be useful nonetheless.\r\n\r\nIn Physics 2.9, Aristotle continues his polemic against those who explain nature in terms of necessitating material interactions, arguing that necessity is present in all things that have goal-directedness, if I may so translate \u201cthe for-the-sake-of-something,\u201d but that the necessity of matter is not the cause or explanation of what comes about. There is, by the way, in my view a systematic ambiguity in the terminology commonly used here; necessity can be conditional either on a future goal or on some past event, but the custom has developed of using \u201cconditional\u201d or \u201chypothetical\u201d necessity to indicate that which relates to the future, \u201cabsolute\u201d to indicate that which is conditional on past events\u2014presumably because there is no longer anything hypothetical about these. But, especially in the ancient Peripatetic context where, as Patzig pointed out, qualifications attach to predicates rather than to whole propositions, this could be misleading from the point of view of logical analysis.\r\n\r\nBuilding a house necessarily requires bricks; but the fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders\u2019 merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. (It could be an explanation of why you have a brick house, or more strictly of why, given that you have a house, it is a brick one; but that is a different point.) To be sure, Aristotle\u2019s argument in 2.9 is open to challenge in that he takes his examples from human goal-directed activity, and the extrapolation from these to natural processes is open to question. David Sedley well suggests that the self-building wall may be a parody of atomist cosmogony. A human being requires human flesh and human bones; but, Aristotle\u2019s view would seem to imply, human flesh does not self-assemble into a human being\u2014perhaps because it cannot even be human flesh, except homonymously, if it is not part of a human being. There are well-known problems here about how the final cause of embryonic development can also be the efficient cause, but I do not propose to pursue them now.\r\n\r\nFor, more important in the present context, is a distinction indicated by the example I have just used. The fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders\u2019 merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. Why not? Well, presumably, because sitting looking at the pile of bricks will not give you a house; you, or the builder, need to do something with them. Bricks not only do not explain the coming-to-be of a brick house (let us call this \u201cthesis A\u201d); they do not necessarily lead to it, either (let us call this \u201cthesis B\u201d). In more formal language, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For the Presocratic natural philosophers whom Aristotle is attacking, on the other hand, material interactions are both sufficient conditions for, and explanations of, natural phenomena.\r\n\r\nNormally, an explanation will be a sufficient condition, or at least that one of a number of jointly sufficient conditions that is relevant in the explanatory context. Consequently, to say that material actions may necessitate, i.e., may be sufficient for, but may not explain, some event, or in the contexts with which we are concerned the coming-to-be of something, is to raise the specter of over-determination. If natural comings-to-be are necessitated by matter and its interactions\u2014what some call \u201cabsolute\u201d necessity\u2014is there any room left in which to argue that they are explained by the purposes or goals for which they are necessary means?\r\n[introduction p. 19-20]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKYRiSGUGVV8cTg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1172,"section_of":1171,"pages":"19-30","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1172,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"19-30"}},"sort":[2012]}

Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik, 2012
By: Drews, Friedemann

Title	Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2012
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	155
Issue	3/4
Pages	389-412
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Drews, Friedemann
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplikios nimmt Parmenides sowohl vor dem potentiellen Vorwurf, er würde nicht hinreichend zwischen Intelligiblem und Sinnlichem unterscheiden, in Schutz als auch integriert er Aristoteles' Kritik im Sinne einer potentiellen Missverständnissen vor beugenden Vorsichtsmaßnahme in seine neuplatonische Parmeni des-Interpretation und weist ihr so einen berechtigten Platz zu. Simplikios' Gründe dafür erscheinen vor dem Hintergrund seines neuplatonischen Denkens plausibel. Ob seine Parmenides-Interpretation als solche dem Eleaten gerecht wird, ist eine andere Frage; zumindest würde Simplikios gegenüber einer Deutung des parmenideischen Seins-Begriffs in dem Sinne, dass „jeder Gegenstand, den wir untersuchen, existieren muß", wohl einwenden wollen, dass dies einer Reduktion von Parmenides' το έόν auf ein abstraktes Erkenntniskriterium gleichkäme, dessen eigene, nur für das νοεΐν erkennbare Seinsfülle dann aus dem Blick geraten wäre. Auch erschiene es in dieser Perspektive fraglich, warum zum Erschließen eines allgemeinen Existenz-Postulats ein Weg „fernab der Menschen" eingeschlagen werden musste oder gar eine göttliche Offenbarung des „unerschütterlichen Herzens der wohlüberzeugenden Wahrheit", von der Parmenides schreibt, nötig war. [conclusion, p. 410-411]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ICo5GC7IUBJgLkS

{"_index":"sire","_id":"623","_score":null,"_source":{"id":623,"authors_free":[{"id":879,"entry_id":623,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":71,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Drews, Friedemann","free_first_name":"Friedemann","free_last_name":"Drews","norm_person":{"id":71,"first_name":"Friedemann","last_name":"Drews","full_name":"Drews, Friedemann","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142475742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik","main_title":{"title":"Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik"},"abstract":"Simplikios nimmt Parmenides sowohl vor dem potentiellen Vorwurf, er w\u00fcrde nicht hinreichend zwischen Intelligiblem und Sinnlichem unterscheiden, in Schutz als auch integriert er Aristoteles' Kritik im Sinne einer potentiellen Missverst\u00e4ndnissen vor beugenden Vorsichtsma\u00dfnahme in seine neuplatonische Parmeni des-Interpretation und weist ihr so einen berechtigten Platz zu. Simplikios' Gr\u00fcnde daf\u00fcr erscheinen vor dem Hintergrund seines neuplatonischen Denkens plausibel. Ob seine Parmenides-Interpretation als solche dem Eleaten gerecht wird, ist eine andere Frage; zumindest w\u00fcrde Simplikios gegen\u00fcber einer Deutung des parmenideischen Seins-Begriffs in dem Sinne, dass \u201ejeder Gegenstand, den wir untersuchen, existieren mu\u00df\", wohl einwenden wollen, dass dies einer Reduktion von Parmenides' \u03c4\u03bf \u03ad\u03cc\u03bd auf ein abstraktes Erkenntniskriterium gleichk\u00e4me, dessen eigene, nur f\u00fcr das \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u0390\u03bd erkennbare Seinsf\u00fclle dann aus dem Blick geraten w\u00e4re. Auch erschiene es in dieser Perspektive fraglich, warum zum Erschlie\u00dfen eines allgemeinen Existenz-Postulats ein Weg \u201efernab der Menschen\" eingeschlagen werden musste oder gar eine g\u00f6ttliche Offenbarung des \u201eunersch\u00fctterlichen Herzens der wohl\u00fcberzeugenden Wahrheit\", von der Parmenides schreibt, n\u00f6tig war. [conclusion, p. 410-411]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ICo5GC7IUBJgLkS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":71,"full_name":"Drews, Friedemann","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":623,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"155","issue":"3\/4","pages":"389-412"}},"sort":[2012]}

Simplicius’ response to Philoponus’ attacks on Aristotle’s Physics 8.1., 2012
By: Chase, Michael, Bodnár, István M. (Ed.), Chase, Michael (Ed.), Share, Michael (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius’ response to Philoponus’ attacks on Aristotle’s Physics 8.1.
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’
Pages	1-16
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)	Bodnár, István M. , Chase, Michael , Share, Michael
Translator(s)

The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius’ usual meticulous comments on the text of Aristotle, who here begins his demonstration of the eternity of motion. As is his wont, the Stagirite starts out with a critical survey of the views of his predecessors, which gives Simplicius the opportunity to quote and explain a number of important fragments of Presocratic philosophers (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Atomists, Diogenes of Apollonia, and especially Empedocles). But the bulk of Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8.1 consists of one of his famous digressions, in which he quotes and attempts to refute several fragments from Book 6 of "Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World," written by his Christian rival, John Philoponus, sometime in the 530s. Many of the arguments of both Philoponus and Simplicius concerning time, eternity, and the nature of the infinite are of considerable philosophical importance, as a number of recent studies have shown. Quite apart from the intrinsic interest of the various arguments mobilized by both interlocutors, however, Book 8.1 of Simplicius’ "Commentary on Physics," together with his "Commentary on the de Caelo," provide us with vitally important documents concerning the conflict between pagans and Christians in the second quarter of the sixth century AD. [p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf

Priscien de Lydie, 2012
By: Perkams, Matthias, Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Priscien de Lydie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2012
Published in	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus
Pages	1514-1521
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Au total, l’autocitation du commentateur du De anima à sa propre Épitomé de Théophraste peut facilement être mise en rapport, grâce à des arguments philologiques solides, avec la Métaphrase conservée de Priscien, ce qui est également confirmé par l’utilisation de cet ouvrage en d’autres passages du commentaire. Les preuves avancées par Steel et Boissier en faveur de cette thèse n’ont jamais été contredites de façon concluante, tandis que les objections faites à leur position peuvent en revanche recevoir une réponse. Finalement, on ne peut opposer à l’attribution du commentaire à Priscien que l’hypothèse fragile d’une Épitomé perdue de Théophraste ; au vu des particularités doctrinales et linguistiques communes aux deux textes conservés, cette hypothèse est en elle-même problématique. Dans la mesure où il n’existe aucune preuve positive de l’existence d’un auteur distinct de Priscien et de Simplicius, il est recommandé, dès lors qu’avec la majorité des chercheurs on retire la paternité du commentaire à Simplicius, de considérer Priscien comme son auteur. L’attribution à Priscien du Commentaire sur le De anima, qui est historiquement parfaitement plausible du fait de l’appartenance de ce philosophe au cercle de Damascius, est en tout cas, grâce à ses très solides bases philologiques, beaucoup mieux fondée que celle de nombreux textes antiques (par exemple l’attribution à Porphyre de Ad Gaurum ou du Commentaire anonyme de Turin sur le Parménide). L’auteur de la présente notice est, pour sa part, persuadé de la justesse de cette attribution. [conclusion p. 1521]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/e7qG8dZmAxFJDkM

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1084","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1084,"authors_free":[{"id":1639,"entry_id":1084,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1640,"entry_id":1084,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscien de Lydie","main_title":{"title":"Priscien de Lydie"},"abstract":"Au total, l\u2019autocitation du commentateur du De anima \u00e0 sa propre \u00c9pitom\u00e9 de Th\u00e9ophraste peut facilement \u00eatre mise en rapport, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 des arguments philologiques solides, avec la M\u00e9taphrase conserv\u00e9e de Priscien, ce qui est \u00e9galement confirm\u00e9 par l\u2019utilisation de cet ouvrage en d\u2019autres passages du commentaire.\r\n\r\nLes preuves avanc\u00e9es par Steel et Boissier en faveur de cette th\u00e8se n\u2019ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contredites de fa\u00e7on concluante, tandis que les objections faites \u00e0 leur position peuvent en revanche recevoir une r\u00e9ponse. Finalement, on ne peut opposer \u00e0 l\u2019attribution du commentaire \u00e0 Priscien que l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se fragile d\u2019une \u00c9pitom\u00e9 perdue de Th\u00e9ophraste ; au vu des particularit\u00e9s doctrinales et linguistiques communes aux deux textes conserv\u00e9s, cette hypoth\u00e8se est en elle-m\u00eame probl\u00e9matique.\r\n\r\nDans la mesure o\u00f9 il n\u2019existe aucune preuve positive de l\u2019existence d\u2019un auteur distinct de Priscien et de Simplicius, il est recommand\u00e9, d\u00e8s lors qu\u2019avec la majorit\u00e9 des chercheurs on retire la paternit\u00e9 du commentaire \u00e0 Simplicius, de consid\u00e9rer Priscien comme son auteur.\r\n\r\nL\u2019attribution \u00e0 Priscien du Commentaire sur le De anima, qui est historiquement parfaitement plausible du fait de l\u2019appartenance de ce philosophe au cercle de Damascius, est en tout cas, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 ses tr\u00e8s solides bases philologiques, beaucoup mieux fond\u00e9e que celle de nombreux textes antiques (par exemple l\u2019attribution \u00e0 Porphyre de Ad Gaurum ou du Commentaire anonyme de Turin sur le Parm\u00e9nide).\r\n\r\nL\u2019auteur de la pr\u00e9sente notice est, pour sa part, persuad\u00e9 de la justesse de cette attribution.\r\n[conclusion p. 1521]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/e7qG8dZmAxFJDkM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1084,"section_of":1378,"pages":"1514-1521","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1378,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x0jZuzeLMaSkQwF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1378,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Self-motion according to Iamblichus, 2012
By: Opsomer, Jan

Title	Self-motion according to Iamblichus
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	33
Issue	2
Pages	259-290
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Iamblichus' theory of self-motion has to be pieced together from various texts and passing remarks. Ever since Aristotle's critique, Plato's concept of the self-motive soul was felt to be problematic. Taking his lead from Plotinus, Iamblichus counters Aristotle's criticism by claiming that true self-motion transcends the opposition between activity and passivity. He moreover argues that it does not involve motion that is spatially extended. Hence it is non-physical. Primary self-motion is the reversion of the soul to itself, by which the soul constitutes itself, i.e. imparts life to itself. This motion is located at the level of essence or substance. The bestowal of life upon the body derives from this fundamental motion. As a result, animals are derivatively self-motive. Secondary self-motions are acts of thought in the broad sense. Contrary to the unmoved motion of intellect, the self-motion of the soul is not beyond time. This somehow fits Iamblichus' theory of the “changing self”. Iamblichus anticipates much of the later Platonic accounts of self-motion. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1Kioea09D5a6jXo

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1093","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1093,"authors_free":[{"id":1651,"entry_id":1093,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Self-motion according to Iamblichus","main_title":{"title":"Self-motion according to Iamblichus"},"abstract":"Iamblichus' theory of self-motion has to be pieced together from various texts and passing remarks. Ever since Aristotle's critique, Plato's concept of the self-motive soul was felt to be problematic. Taking his lead from Plotinus, Iamblichus counters Aristotle's criticism by claiming that true self-motion transcends the opposition between activity and passivity. He moreover argues that it does not involve motion that is spatially extended. Hence it is non-physical. Primary self-motion is the reversion of the soul to itself, by which the soul constitutes itself, i.e. imparts life to itself. This motion is located at the level of essence or substance. The bestowal of life upon the body derives from this fundamental motion. As a result, animals are derivatively self-motive. Secondary self-motions are acts of thought in the broad sense. Contrary to the unmoved motion of intellect, the self-motion of the soul is not beyond time. This somehow fits Iamblichus' theory of the \u201cchanging self\u201d. Iamblichus anticipates much of the later Platonic accounts of self-motion. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1Kioea09D5a6jXo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1093,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"259-290"}},"sort":[2012]}

Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory, 2012
By: Mueller, Ian, Wilberding, James (Ed.), Horn, Christoph (Ed.)

Title	Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Pages	129-146
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mueller, Ian
Editor(s)	Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph
Translator(s)

Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato’s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius’ responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nEraa8dkGyuG6Zy

{"_index":"sire","_id":"812","_score":null,"_source":{"id":812,"authors_free":[{"id":1202,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1203,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1204,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Cristoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory"},"abstract":"Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato\u2019s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius\u2019 responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nEraa8dkGyuG6Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":812,"section_of":299,"pages":"129-146","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Megaric Metaphysics, 2012
By: Bailey, Dominic

Title	Megaric Metaphysics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Ancient philosophy
Volume	32
Issue	2
Pages	303-321
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bailey, Dominic
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first. Moreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YNcy1URcz4PUK83

{"_index":"sire","_id":"826","_score":null,"_source":{"id":826,"authors_free":[{"id":1227,"entry_id":826,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":529,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bailey, Dominic","free_first_name":"Dominic","free_last_name":"Bailey","norm_person":{"id":529,"first_name":"Dominic","last_name":"Bailey","full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Megaric Metaphysics","main_title":{"title":"Megaric Metaphysics"},"abstract":"I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first.\r\n\r\nMoreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YNcy1URcz4PUK83","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":529,"full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":826,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient philosophy","volume":"32","issue":"2","pages":"303-321"}},"sort":[2012]}

Un philosophe plus poète (Simplicius, "Com. in Ar. Phys." 24, 20 / DK 12 A 9), 2012
By: Santoro, Fernando

Title	Un philosophe plus poète (Simplicius, "Com. in Ar. Phys." 24, 20 / DK 12 A 9)
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2012
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	30
Issue	1
Pages	3-22
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Santoro, Fernando
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper is about the meaning and implications for Presocratics' modern exegesis of a comment made by Simplicius about the vocabulary of a passage from Anaximander, which he has just quoted. Simplicius says that Anaximander wrote his sentence about the nature of beings in more poetic terms: ποιητικωτέροις οὕτως ὀνόμασιν αὐτά λέγων. In their remarks on the passage, Nietzsche and Heidegger not only drew attention to the words and thought of Anaximander but also made us look at that simple comment, that "hiccup" of thought in Simplicius. What is it for a philosopher to speak in a more poetic way? We propose to understand that it does not imply the use of images or allegories but a very original way of interacting and thinking in universal terms. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CVvGQIdFa7rcFRB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"856","_score":null,"_source":{"id":856,"authors_free":[{"id":1260,"entry_id":856,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":310,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Santoro, Fernando","free_first_name":"Fernando","free_last_name":"Santoro","norm_person":{"id":310,"first_name":"Fernando","last_name":"Santoro","full_name":"Santoro, Fernando","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1060236362","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un philosophe plus po\u00e8te (Simplicius, \"Com. in Ar. Phys.\" 24, 20 \/ DK 12 A 9)","main_title":{"title":"Un philosophe plus po\u00e8te (Simplicius, \"Com. in Ar. Phys.\" 24, 20 \/ DK 12 A 9)"},"abstract":"This paper is about the meaning and implications for Presocratics' modern exegesis of a comment made by Simplicius about the vocabulary of a passage from Anaximander, which he has just quoted. Simplicius says that Anaximander wrote his sentence about the nature of beings in more poetic terms: \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd.\r\n\r\nIn their remarks on the passage, Nietzsche and Heidegger not only drew attention to the words and thought of Anaximander but also made us look at that simple comment, that \"hiccup\" of thought in Simplicius.\r\n\r\nWhat is it for a philosopher to speak in a more poetic way? We propose to understand that it does not imply the use of images or allegories but a very original way of interacting and thinking in universal terms. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CVvGQIdFa7rcFRB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":310,"full_name":"Santoro, Fernando","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":856,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"30","issue":"1","pages":"3-22"}},"sort":[2012]}

What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12, 2012
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	6
Pages	173-185
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justifĳication for the study of Aristotle’s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus’ reasons for endorsing Porphyry’s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry’s. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FkVb1TMzAG6AZ5E

{"_index":"sire","_id":"937","_score":null,"_source":{"id":937,"authors_free":[{"id":1390,"entry_id":937,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","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":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12","main_title":{"title":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12"},"abstract":"Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justif\u0133ication for the study of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus\u2019 reasons for endorsing Porphyry\u2019s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry\u2019s. [authors abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FkVb1TMzAG6AZ5E","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":937,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"173-185"}},"sort":[2012]}

Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature, 2012
By: Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Wilberding, James (Ed.)

Title	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Wilberding, James
Translator(s)

Despite Platonism’s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity—or Neoplatonists—were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is ‘merely’ an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part—‘The general metaphysics of Nature’—directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part—’Platonic approaches to individual sciences’—showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J

{"_index":"sire","_id":"299","_score":null,"_source":{"id":299,"authors_free":[{"id":372,"entry_id":299,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2080,"entry_id":299,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature"},"abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive, 2012
By: Perrot, Arnaud (Ed.)

Title	Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2012
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Rue d'Ulm
Series	Études de littérature ancienne
Volume	20
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Perrot, Arnaud
Translator(s)

Les modernes ont souvent opposé les chrétiens à l’hellénisme. Les auteurs antiques eux-mêmes – qu’ils soient « Grecs » ou chrétiens – semblent avoir thématisé leur antagonisme. Que vaut cette ligne de fracture ? Qu’est-ce qu’être Grec à la fin de l’Antiquité ? Pour quelles raisons un chrétien hellénophone, passé par les écoles de l’Empire et nourri de paideia, ne saurait-il être un Grec, au même titre que les autres ? Qui donne, qui revendique et qui refuse ce titre – et pourquoi ? Les termes dans lesquels le sujet est posé ne sont ni simples, ni neutres. La notion d’hellénisme, qui peut paraître moins confessionnelle que celle de « paganisme », est en réalité marquée par les conflits religieux des époques hellénistique et tardive. Ce sont, on le montrera, les besoins de l’autodéfinition et l’élaboration de la polémique contre l’Autre qui conditionnent les rapports entre les chrétiens et « l’hellénisme ». Cet ouvrage porte une attention particulière au but poursuivi par les auteurs anciens dans chacune de leurs déclarations identitaires, entre langue commune et particularisme religieux. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9Fs2iPPdApqIvv7

{"_index":"sire","_id":"358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":358,"authors_free":[{"id":471,"entry_id":358,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":212,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Perrot","norm_person":{"id":212,"first_name":"Arnaud","last_name":"Perrot","full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135696276","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les chr\u00e9tiens et l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme: identit\u00e9s religieuses et culture grecque dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive","main_title":{"title":"Les chr\u00e9tiens et l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme: identit\u00e9s religieuses et culture grecque dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive"},"abstract":"Les modernes ont souvent oppos\u00e9 les chr\u00e9tiens \u00e0 l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme. Les auteurs antiques eux-m\u00eames \u2013 qu\u2019ils soient \u00ab Grecs \u00bb ou chr\u00e9tiens \u2013 semblent avoir th\u00e9matis\u00e9 leur antagonisme. Que vaut cette ligne de fracture ? Qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019\u00eatre Grec \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 ? Pour quelles raisons un chr\u00e9tien hell\u00e9nophone, pass\u00e9 par les \u00e9coles de l\u2019Empire et nourri de paideia, ne saurait-il \u00eatre un Grec, au m\u00eame titre que les autres ? Qui donne, qui revendique et qui refuse ce titre \u2013 et pourquoi ? Les termes dans lesquels le sujet est pos\u00e9 ne sont ni simples, ni neutres. La notion d\u2019hell\u00e9nisme, qui peut para\u00eetre moins confessionnelle que celle de \u00ab paganisme \u00bb, est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 marqu\u00e9e par les conflits religieux des \u00e9poques hell\u00e9nistique et tardive. Ce sont, on le montrera, les besoins de l\u2019autod\u00e9finition et l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la pol\u00e9mique contre l\u2019Autre qui conditionnent les rapports entre les chr\u00e9tiens et \u00ab l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00bb. Cet ouvrage porte une attention particuli\u00e8re au but poursuivi par les auteurs anciens dans chacune de leurs d\u00e9clarations identitaires, entre langue commune et particularisme religieux. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9Fs2iPPdApqIvv7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":212,"full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":358,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Rue d'Ulm","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’, 2012
By: Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Bodnár, István M.(Bodnár, István M.) , Chase, Michael(Chase, Michael ) , Share, Michael (Share, Michael ) ,

In this commentary on Aristotle Physics book eight, chapters one to five, the sixth-century philosopher Simplicius quotes and explains important fragments of the Presocratic philosophers, provides the fragments of his Christian opponent Philoponus' Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, and makes extensive use of the lost commentary of Aristotle's leading defender, Alexander of Aphrodisias. This volume contains an English translation of Simplicius' important commentary, as well as a detailed introduction, explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LJFtY7RnI5jMqhW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"121","_score":null,"_source":{"id":121,"authors_free":[{"id":145,"entry_id":121,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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}},{"id":146,"entry_id":121,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":147,"entry_id":121,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Share, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Share","norm_person":{"id":27,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Share","full_name":"Share, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142260010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1879,"entry_id":121,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.1-5\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.1-5\u2019"},"abstract":"In this commentary on Aristotle Physics book eight, chapters one to five, the sixth-century philosopher Simplicius quotes and explains important fragments of the Presocratic philosophers, provides the fragments of his Christian opponent Philoponus' Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, and makes extensive use of the lost commentary of Aristotle's leading defender, Alexander of Aphrodisias.\r\n\r\nThis volume contains an English translation of Simplicius' important commentary, as well as a detailed introduction, explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LJFtY7RnI5jMqhW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":121,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 1.5–9’, 2012
By: Simplicius , Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Atkinson, Michael (Ed.), Share, Michael (Ed.), Mueller, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 1.5–9’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Baltussen, Han , Atkinson, Michael , Share, Michael , Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Baltussen, Han(Baltussen, Han) , Atkinson, M.(Atkinson, Michael ) , Share, Michael (Share, Michael ) , Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Simplicius' greatest contribution in his commentary on Aristotle on Physics 1.5-9 lies in his treatment of matter. The sixth-century philosopher starts with a valuable elucidation of what Aristotle means by 'principle' and 'element' in Physics. Simplicius' own conception of matter is of a quantity that is utterly diffuse because of its extreme distance from its source, the Neoplatonic One, and he tries to find this conception both in Plato's account of space and in a stray remark of Aristotle's. Finally, Simplicius rejects the Manichaean view that matter is evil and answers a Christian objection that to make matter imperishable is to put it on a level with God. This is the first translation of Simplicius' important work into English. [official abstact]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Pv4w4aOCf88Ez2l

When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us, 2012
By: Gabor, Gary, Hoine, Pieter d' (Ed.), Van Riel, Gerd (Ed.)

Title	When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel
Pages	325-340
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)	Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd
Translator(s)

At Enchiridion § 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (μαντική). Epictetus’ answer, along with Simplicius’ commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus’ Stoicism and Simplicius’ Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus’ view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/isb0txplRikCizk

{"_index":"sire","_id":"591","_score":null,"_source":{"id":591,"authors_free":[{"id":840,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2355,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2356,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"},"abstract":"At Enchiridion \u00a7 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Epictetus\u2019 answer, along with Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus\u2019 Stoicism and Simplicius\u2019 Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus\u2019 view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/isb0txplRikCizk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":591,"section_of":258,"pages":"325-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":258,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"d_hoine2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus, 2012
By: Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2012
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	CNRS Éditions
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kVyktnhntO4rsCH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1378","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1378,"authors_free":[{"id":2122,"entry_id":1378,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus","main_title":{"title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kVyktnhntO4rsCH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1378,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

“Creatio ex nihilo”: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages, 2012
By: Gleede, Benjamin

Title	“Creatio ex nihilo”: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume	22
Pages	91-117
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gleede, Benjamin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato’s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle’s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-Fārābī in his exposition of Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Q6zkHx0QhaNpLZ6

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1416","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1416,"authors_free":[{"id":2217,"entry_id":1416,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":395,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Gleede","norm_person":{"id":395,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Gleede","full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138770468","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages","main_title":{"title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages"},"abstract":"The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato\u2019s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle\u2019s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b in his exposition of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q6zkHx0QhaNpLZ6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":395,"full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1416,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"22","issue":"","pages":"91-117"}},"sort":[2012]}

Forms and Concepts. Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition, 2012
By: Helmig, Christoph

Title	Forms and Concepts. Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	5
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Forms and Concepts is the first comprehensive study of the central role of concepts and concept acquisition in the Platonic tradition. It sets up a stimulating dialogue between Plato’s innatist approach and Aristotle’s much more empirical response. The primary aim is to analyze and assess the strategies with which Platonists responded to Aristotle’s (and Alexander of Aphrodisias’) rival theory. The monograph culminates in a careful reconstruction of the elaborate attempt undertaken by the Neoplatonist Proclus (6th century AD) to devise a systematic Platonic theory of concept acquisition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7AJjtmjoFAqvB7D

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1429","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1429,"authors_free":[{"id":2248,"entry_id":1429,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Forms and Concepts. Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Forms and Concepts. Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition"},"abstract":"Forms and Concepts is the first comprehensive study of the central role of concepts and concept acquisition in the Platonic tradition. It sets up a stimulating dialogue between Plato\u2019s innatist approach and Aristotle\u2019s much more empirical response. The primary aim is to analyze and assess the strategies with which Platonists responded to Aristotle\u2019s (and Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019) rival theory. The monograph culminates in a careful reconstruction of the elaborate attempt undertaken by the Neoplatonist Proclus (6th century AD) to devise a systematic Platonic theory of concept acquisition. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7AJjtmjoFAqvB7D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1429,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4, 2012
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	The Classical Review
Volume	62
Issue	2
Pages	465-467
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Thanks to the Ancient Commentators project, almost all of Simplicius' commentaries are now translated. This volume completes the gigantic On Aristotle's Physics. Within this monument, Book 1 must be the most read by scholars today because Aristotle's criticism of several physical theories leads Simplicius to multiply quotations of his forerunners and to preserve for his contemporaries (as well as for us) much Presocratic material (by Simplicius' time much of this had already become very rare: see In Phys. 144.25-9 on Parmenides). In Chapter 1.3, Aristotle discusses the unity of Being he ascribes to the Eleatic philosophers. Simplicius comments abundantly. Citing Theophrastus, Alexander, and Porphyry, he reproduces the 'Eleatic syllogism,' which affirms Being and excludes not-Being, so as to prove Parmenides' thesis that Being is one and to assert, via Plato's Sophist, that Parmenides recognizes the existence of not-Being. Moreover, he assigns this reading to Aristotle himself, considering his criticism as an expression of later conceptual and linguistic refinements. In Chapter 1.4, Aristotle discusses Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Empedocles. Here again, Simplicius contributes to the debate by his numerous quotations and by his analysis of rival commentators (Theophrastus, Alexander, Porphyry, and Nicolaus of Damascus). He considers how Anaxagoras and Empedocles can say that their principles are both one and many. Then, confronted with Aristotle's criticism of homoiomeria and nous, he gives a non-physical reading of Anaxagoras' account, explaining that it talks figuratively about a level of reality exceeding our mental capacities. In other words, in both these chapters, he attempts to reconcile Aristotle's physics with Presocratic philosophy so as to build a coherent system from the whole pagan tradition. This volume could be said to consist of two books. Each translation is due to a different author; there are two introductions, two translations, and two selections of notes, and only the index and bibliography are in common. There are only minor differences in the style of the translations, but greater ones occur elsewhere. I shall discuss them separately. As to H.'s introduction, two things must be noted. First, she contributes to the fierce debate by proposing a stimulating hypothesis about the place where such a large commentary could have been written: discrepancies, sometimes substantial, occurring in Simplicius' treatment of his sources are the result of his having written in various places. However, they could also be explained by the difficulty at that time of keeping every useful book constantly at hand: scholars were often compelled to write from memory. Second, H. summarizes the treatment Simplicius gives of Melissus and Parmenides, moving abruptly from one episode to the other. She perfectly communicates the sometimes confusing character of Simplicius' text. Her notes provide useful documentation rather than an explanatory commentary: she mentions parallels and justifies her translation but avoids going into detail about the philosophical issues. T. opts to draw a clear map of the text, insisting on its structure and summing up its main arguments. Moreover, most of the references are given within the translation (in brackets), while end-notes (fewer but longer) are devoted to explaining the contents of and issues in Simplicius' commentary (i.e., his reading of the Presocratic fragments). The translation is remarkably successful in rendering the stylistic variations in Simplicius' text, which constantly moves from paraphrase to quotation or philosophical commentary. The Greek text largely follows H. Diels' edition (1882), sometimes as emended by later editors of the Presocratic fragments (DK inter alios). Now for some points of detail. In this Neoplatonic context, H. first suggests translating noeros as 'thinker' (and related words), 'because neither "mental" nor "intellectual" have the grammatical flexibility required' (p. 100 on In Phys. 143.18-19). Nevertheless, a little further on (p. 57 = In Phys. 147.26) she translates en tois noerois as 'in the mental area.' Another point concerns T.'s translation of Anaxagoras' vovs as 'Mind' (pp. 81-4). My intention here is not to contest this translation for interpreting Anaxagoras but to remind the reader that Simplicius must have connected this concept with his Neoplatonic vocabulary so that 'Intellect' seems a better translation. Otherwise, it becomes very problematic to translate the following: kai diakekritai oun kai hênôtai kata Anaxagoran ta eidê kai amphô dia ton noun echei. T. writes: 'In Anaxagoras' view, the kinds owe both their separation and their unity to Mind' (p. 84 = In Phys. 176.31-2); but it is difficult to exclude the likelihood that Simplicius, with his Neoplatonic background, was reading these words with reference to Intellect and Forms. H. translates to on hen men esti, polla de ouk estin as 'Being is one and not many' (p. 37 = In Phys. 126.8). Since Simplicius has just referred to the Sophist and next opposes Being to rest and motion, it would be preferable to translate as 'is not many things.' Further (p. 46 = In Phys. 135.24), H. emends a quotation from the Sophist, turning tou ontos into tou mê ontos, following Plato's manuscripts. However, the text given by Simplicius makes sense and ought not to be altered (see my Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste (2007), pp. 140-1). One could wonder why both authors have chosen, as is often done in this collection, to give the full lemmas from Aristotle's Physics, while Simplicius' manuscripts and Diels' edition give only a shortened version (i.e., 'from ... to ...'). Although it is risky to translate a text that possibly was not the one read by Simplicius, the decision should at least have been made explicit. Finally, the bibliography. On Simplicius, H. and T. refer only to two recent books: H. Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius (2008), and P. Golitsis, Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d'Aristote (2008). The remainder of the short bibliography concerns the Presocratics and Aristotle. One would expect at least to find reference to a book and a paper written by A. Stevens: Postérité de l'Être. Simplicius interprète de Parménide (1989) and 'La Physique d'Empédocle selon Simplicius,' RBPh (1989), 65-74. They provide commentaries on and (partial) translations of the chapters studied here. With its English-Greek glossary, Greek-English index, subject index, and index of passages, this book is an extraordinarily useful tool for scholars. It provides an up-to-date translation of some of the richest pages about Presocratic philosophy. Now we can dream about a new edition of this commentary to replace the often misleading version of Diels. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fltNdJ3NAIOLUAG

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1465","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1465,"authors_free":[{"id":2538,"entry_id":1465,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3\u20134","main_title":{"title":"Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3\u20134"},"abstract":"Thanks to the Ancient Commentators project, almost all of Simplicius' commentaries are now translated. This volume completes the gigantic On Aristotle's Physics. Within this monument, Book 1 must be the most read by scholars today because Aristotle's criticism of several physical theories leads Simplicius to multiply quotations of his forerunners and to preserve for his contemporaries (as well as for us) much Presocratic material (by Simplicius' time much of this had already become very rare: see In Phys. 144.25-9 on Parmenides).\r\nIn Chapter 1.3, Aristotle discusses the unity of Being he ascribes to the Eleatic philosophers. Simplicius comments abundantly. Citing Theophrastus, Alexander, and Porphyry, he reproduces the 'Eleatic syllogism,' which affirms Being and excludes not-Being, so as to prove Parmenides' thesis that Being is one and to assert, via Plato's Sophist, that Parmenides recognizes the existence of not-Being. Moreover, he assigns this reading to Aristotle himself, considering his criticism as an expression of later conceptual and linguistic refinements.\r\nIn Chapter 1.4, Aristotle discusses Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Empedocles. Here again, Simplicius contributes to the debate by his numerous quotations and by his analysis of rival commentators (Theophrastus, Alexander, Porphyry, and Nicolaus of Damascus). He considers how Anaxagoras and Empedocles can say that their principles are both one and many. Then, confronted with Aristotle's criticism of homoiomeria and nous, he gives a non-physical reading of Anaxagoras' account, explaining that it talks figuratively about a level of reality exceeding our mental capacities. In other words, in both these chapters, he attempts to reconcile Aristotle's physics with Presocratic philosophy so as to build a coherent system from the whole pagan tradition.\r\nThis volume could be said to consist of two books. Each translation is due to a different author; there are two introductions, two translations, and two selections of notes, and only the index and bibliography are in common. There are only minor differences in the style of the translations, but greater ones occur elsewhere. I shall discuss them separately.\r\nAs to H.'s introduction, two things must be noted. First, she contributes to the fierce debate by proposing a stimulating hypothesis about the place where such a large commentary could have been written: discrepancies, sometimes substantial, occurring in Simplicius' treatment of his sources are the result of his having written in various places. However, they could also be explained by the difficulty at that time of keeping every useful book constantly at hand: scholars were often compelled to write from memory. Second, H. summarizes the treatment Simplicius gives of Melissus and Parmenides, moving abruptly from one episode to the other. She perfectly communicates the sometimes confusing character of Simplicius' text. Her notes provide useful documentation rather than an explanatory commentary: she mentions parallels and justifies her translation but avoids going into detail about the philosophical issues.\r\nT. opts to draw a clear map of the text, insisting on its structure and summing up its main arguments. Moreover, most of the references are given within the translation (in brackets), while end-notes (fewer but longer) are devoted to explaining the contents of and issues in Simplicius' commentary (i.e., his reading of the Presocratic fragments).\r\nThe translation is remarkably successful in rendering the stylistic variations in Simplicius' text, which constantly moves from paraphrase to quotation or philosophical commentary. The Greek text largely follows H. Diels' edition (1882), sometimes as emended by later editors of the Presocratic fragments (DK inter alios).\r\nNow for some points of detail. In this Neoplatonic context, H. first suggests translating noeros as 'thinker' (and related words), 'because neither \"mental\" nor \"intellectual\" have the grammatical flexibility required' (p. 100 on In Phys. 143.18-19). Nevertheless, a little further on (p. 57 = In Phys. 147.26) she translates en tois noerois as 'in the mental area.' Another point concerns T.'s translation of Anaxagoras' vovs as 'Mind' (pp. 81-4). My intention here is not to contest this translation for interpreting Anaxagoras but to remind the reader that Simplicius must have connected this concept with his Neoplatonic vocabulary so that 'Intellect' seems a better translation. Otherwise, it becomes very problematic to translate the following: kai diakekritai oun kai h\u00ean\u00f4tai kata Anaxagoran ta eid\u00ea kai amph\u00f4 dia ton noun echei. T. writes: 'In Anaxagoras' view, the kinds owe both their separation and their unity to Mind' (p. 84 = In Phys. 176.31-2); but it is difficult to exclude the likelihood that Simplicius, with his Neoplatonic background, was reading these words with reference to Intellect and Forms.\r\nH. translates to on hen men esti, polla de ouk estin as 'Being is one and not many' (p. 37 = In Phys. 126.8). Since Simplicius has just referred to the Sophist and next opposes Being to rest and motion, it would be preferable to translate as 'is not many things.' Further (p. 46 = In Phys. 135.24), H. emends a quotation from the Sophist, turning tou ontos into tou m\u00ea ontos, following Plato's manuscripts. However, the text given by Simplicius makes sense and ought not to be altered (see my Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste (2007), pp. 140-1).\r\nOne could wonder why both authors have chosen, as is often done in this collection, to give the full lemmas from Aristotle's Physics, while Simplicius' manuscripts and Diels' edition give only a shortened version (i.e., 'from ... to ...'). Although it is risky to translate a text that possibly was not the one read by Simplicius, the decision should at least have been made explicit.\r\nFinally, the bibliography. On Simplicius, H. and T. refer only to two recent books: H. Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius (2008), and P. Golitsis, Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote (2008). The remainder of the short bibliography concerns the Presocratics and Aristotle. One would expect at least to find reference to a book and a paper written by A. Stevens: Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l'\u00catre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide (1989) and 'La Physique d'Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius,' RBPh (1989), 65-74. They provide commentaries on and (partial) translations of the chapters studied here.\r\nWith its English-Greek glossary, Greek-English index, subject index, and index of passages, this book is an extraordinarily useful tool for scholars. It provides an up-to-date translation of some of the richest pages about Presocratic philosophy. Now we can dream about a new edition of this commentary to replace the often misleading version of Diels.\r\n[author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fltNdJ3NAIOLUAG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1465,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"62","issue":"2","pages":"465-467"}},"sort":[2012]}

Zu Aristoteles’ Rezeption der vorsokratischen Prinzipienlehren (Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26). Teil 2 (Themistios, Philoponos, Simplikios), 2012
By: Marcinkowska-Rosół, Maria

Title	Zu Aristoteles’ Rezeption der vorsokratischen Prinzipienlehren (Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26). Teil 2 (Themistios, Philoponos, Simplikios)
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2012
Journal	EOS
Volume	99
Pages	67-89
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Marcinkowska-Rosół, Maria
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The paper presents an examination of the Aristotelian classification of the natural philosophers in Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26. It focuses on the exgesis of this passage found in the commentarys on the Physics by Themsitios (In Ph. 5,2. 13. 9-28), Philoponus (In Ph. 86. 19-94. 16) and Simplicius (In Ph. 148. 25-161. 20). The ancient interpretations are discussed, evaluated and compared with the modern readings of the Aristotelian text. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pSayJ4y8SwOz6eb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1481","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1481,"authors_free":[{"id":2563,"entry_id":1481,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":548,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142,","norm_person":{"id":548,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142","full_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141413786","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zu Aristoteles\u2019 Rezeption der vorsokratischen Prinzipienlehren (Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26). Teil 2 (Themistios, Philoponos, Simplikios)","main_title":{"title":"Zu Aristoteles\u2019 Rezeption der vorsokratischen Prinzipienlehren (Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26). Teil 2 (Themistios, Philoponos, Simplikios)"},"abstract":"The paper presents an examination of the Aristotelian classification of the natural philosophers in Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26. It focuses on the exgesis of this passage found in the commentarys on the Physics by Themsitios (In Ph. 5,2. 13. 9-28), Philoponus (In Ph. 86. 19-94. 16) and Simplicius (In Ph. 148. 25-161. 20). The ancient interpretations are discussed, evaluated and compared with the modern readings of the Aristotelian text. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pSayJ4y8SwOz6eb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":548,"full_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142, Maria","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1481,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"EOS","volume":"99","issue":"","pages":"67-89"}},"sort":[2012]}

Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence, 2011
By: Clucas, Stephen (Ed.), Forshaw, Peter J. (Ed.), Rees, Valery (Ed.)

Title	Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Series	Brill's Studies in Intellectual History
Volume	198
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Clucas, Stephen , Forshaw, Peter J. , Rees, Valery
Translator(s)

This collection of essays honours Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) as a Platonic philosopher. Ficino was not the first translator of Plato in the Renaissance, but he was the first to translate the entire corpus of Platonic works, and to emphasise their relevance for contemporary readers. The present work is divided into two sections: the first explores aspects of Ficino’s own thought and the sources which he used. The second section follows aspects of his influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The papers presented here deepen and enrich our understanding of Ficino, and of the philosophical tradition in which he was working, and they offer a new platform for future studies on Ficino and his legacy in Renaissance philosophy. Contributors include: Unn Irene Aasdalen, Constance Blackwell, Paul Richard Blum, Stephen Clucas, Ruth Clydesdale, Brian Copenhaver, John Dillon, Peter J. Forshaw, James Hankins, Hiro Hirai, Sarah Klitenic Wear, David Leech, Letizia Panizza, Valery Rees, and Stéphane Toussaint. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/J4IFZHaUYcFnYSe

{"_index":"sire","_id":"613","_score":null,"_source":{"id":613,"authors_free":[{"id":868,"entry_id":613,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":400,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Clucas, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Clucas","norm_person":{"id":400,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Clucas","full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139992146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2224,"entry_id":613,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":401,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Forshaw","norm_person":{"id":401,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Forshaw","full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137513941","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2225,"entry_id":613,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":402,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rees, Valery","free_first_name":"Valery","free_last_name":"Rees","norm_person":{"id":402,"first_name":"Valery","last_name":"Rees","full_name":"Rees, Valery","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033238872","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence","main_title":{"title":"Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence"},"abstract":"This collection of essays honours Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) as a Platonic philosopher. Ficino was not the first translator of Plato in the Renaissance, but he was the first to translate the entire corpus of Platonic works, and to emphasise their relevance for contemporary readers. The present work is divided into two sections: the first explores aspects of Ficino\u2019s own thought and the sources which he used. The second section follows aspects of his influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The papers presented here deepen and enrich our understanding of Ficino, and of the philosophical tradition in which he was working, and they offer a new platform for future studies on Ficino and his legacy in Renaissance philosophy.\r\n\r\nContributors include: Unn Irene Aasdalen, Constance Blackwell, Paul Richard Blum, Stephen Clucas, Ruth Clydesdale, Brian Copenhaver, John Dillon, Peter J. Forshaw, James Hankins, Hiro Hirai, Sarah Klitenic Wear, David Leech, Letizia Panizza, Valery Rees, and St\u00e9phane Toussaint. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J4IFZHaUYcFnYSe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":400,"full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":401,"full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":402,"full_name":"Rees, Valery","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":613,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Studies in Intellectual History","volume":"198","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius, 2011
By: Blackwell, Constance, Clucas, Stephen (Ed.), Forshaw, Peter J. (Ed.), Rees, Valery (Ed.)

Title	Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2011
Published in	Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence
Pages	317–342
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Blackwell, Constance
Editor(s)	Clucas, Stephen , Forshaw, Peter J. , Rees, Valery
Translator(s)

I have presented here some details of a very large and complex debate, in the process of which the history of Platonism itself was transformed. Some made every effort to write the Neo-Platonic tradition out of philosophy's history. For others, like Ralph Cudworth, who substantially transformed it, it was the most important part, while for Brucker it distorted the history of philosophy. [conclusion p. 342]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II, 2011
By: Gerson, Lloyd P. (Ed.)

Title	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	Cambridge
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Volume	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Translator(s)

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200–800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"964","_score":null,"_source":{"id":964,"authors_free":[{"id":1448,"entry_id":964,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","main_title":{"title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II"},"abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Simplicius of Cilicia, 2011
By: Baltussen, Han, Gerson, Lloyd P. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius of Cilicia
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2011
Published in	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II
Pages	711-732
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Translator(s)

The few facts we have about Simplicius’ life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18–19) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245–320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as "the divine Iamblichus," In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus ("the teacher of my teachers," In Phys. 611.11–12, cf. 795.4–5). The expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian’s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480–560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30–9 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39–44/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event. There has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a "philosopher-king," the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7). Others have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu’s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment. There are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the "divine Iamblichus" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PftkJOubxPYtz2C

{"_index":"sire","_id":"965","_score":null,"_source":{"id":965,"authors_free":[{"id":1449,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2091,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia"},"abstract":"The few facts we have about Simplicius\u2019 life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18\u201319) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245\u2013320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as \"the divine Iamblichus,\" In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus (\"the teacher of my teachers,\" In Phys. 611.11\u201312, cf. 795.4\u20135).\r\n\r\nThe expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian\u2019s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480\u2013560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30\u20139 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39\u201344\/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event.\r\n\r\nThere has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a \"philosopher-king,\" the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7).\r\n\r\nOthers have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu\u2019s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment.\r\n\r\nThere are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the \"divine Iamblichus\" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PftkJOubxPYtz2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":965,"section_of":964,"pages":"711-732","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, 2011
By: Lössl, Josef (Ed.), Watt, John W. (Ed.)

Title	Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	Surrey – Burlington
Publisher	Ashgate
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Lössl, Josef , Watt, John W.
Translator(s)

This book brings together sixteen studies by internationally renowned scholars on the origins and early development of the Latin and Syriac biblical and philosophical commentary traditions. It casts light on the work of the founder of philosophical biblical commentary, Origen of Alexandria, and traces the developments of fourth- and fifth-century Latin commentary techniques in writers such as Marius Victorinus, Jerome and Boethius. The focus then moves east, to the beginnings of Syriac philosophical commentary and its relationship to theology in the works of Sergius of Reshaina, Probus and Paul the Persian, and the influence of this continuing tradition in the East up to the Arabic writings of al-Farabi. There are also chapters on the practice of teaching Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy in fifth-century Alexandria, on contemporaneous developments among Byzantine thinkers, and on the connections in Latin and Syriac traditions between translation (from Greek) and commentary. With its enormous breadth and the groundbreaking originality of its contributions, this volume is an indispensable resource not only for specialists, but also for all students and scholars interested in late-antique intellectual history, especially the practice of teaching and studying philosophy, the philosophical exegesis of the Bible, and the role of commentary in the post-Hellenistic world as far as the classical renaissance in Islam.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kR9UCCsaG87xlqQ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"271","_score":null,"_source":{"id":271,"authors_free":[{"id":342,"entry_id":271,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":359,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","free_first_name":"Josef","free_last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","norm_person":{"id":359,"first_name":"Josef","last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030028400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2166,"entry_id":271,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":358,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Watt, John W.","free_first_name":"John W.","free_last_name":"Watt","norm_person":{"id":358,"first_name":"John W.","last_name":"Watt","full_name":"Watt, John W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131435531","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad"},"abstract":"This book brings together sixteen studies by internationally renowned scholars on the origins and early development of the Latin and Syriac biblical and philosophical commentary traditions. It casts light on the work of the founder of philosophical biblical commentary, Origen of Alexandria, and traces the developments of fourth- and fifth-century Latin commentary techniques in writers such as Marius Victorinus, Jerome and Boethius. The focus then moves east, to the beginnings of Syriac philosophical commentary and its relationship to theology in the works of Sergius of Reshaina, Probus and Paul the Persian, and the influence of this continuing tradition in the East up to the Arabic writings of al-Farabi. There are also chapters on the practice of teaching Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy in fifth-century Alexandria, on contemporaneous developments among Byzantine thinkers, and on the connections in Latin and Syriac traditions between translation (from Greek) and commentary. With its enormous breadth and the groundbreaking originality of its contributions, this volume is an indispensable resource not only for specialists, but also for all students and scholars interested in late-antique intellectual history, especially the practice of teaching and studying philosophy, the philosophical exegesis of the Bible, and the role of commentary in the post-Hellenistic world as far as the classical renaissance in Islam.","btype":4,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kR9UCCsaG87xlqQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":359,"full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":358,"full_name":"Watt, John W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":271,"pubplace":"Surrey \u2013 Burlington","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy, 2011
By: Longo, Angela (Ed.), Del Forno, Davide (Coll.) (Ed.)

Title	Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2011
Publication Place	Napoli
Publisher	Bibliopolis
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Longo, Angela , Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)
Translator(s)

This volume offers an over-arching study of teh use of hypothetical arguments in ancient philosophy. It may claim to be pioneering inasmuch as it considers texts and authors from the classical period from the Hellenistic age, and from late antiquity. Its order is chronological: from Plato to Damascius. Its approach is plural: there are historico-critical essays and there are pieces of a more theoretical nature; the theoretical parts of the volume aim to explain what sort of thing a hypothesis is, what marks off arguments based upon hypotheses from other arguments, what rules of inference hypothetical argumentation invokes, what a hypothecial argument may hope to achieve, and so on. The primary aspiration of the volume is to provide a wide view of a subject which, insofar as it is in itself semwhat technical, tends to attract a nice and narrow inspection. Thus one criterion which contributors have been encouraged to observe is this: the use of hypothetical arguments - or of the "hypothetical method" - should be considered not in isolation but rather in connection with the other dialectical procedures of division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. The volume makes a first step towrds a synthetic account of the use of hypotheses in ancient dialectic.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ABkBQ3CmiH2yDCa

{"_index":"sire","_id":"355","_score":null,"_source":{"id":355,"authors_free":[{"id":462,"entry_id":355,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2402,"entry_id":355,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":464,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Davide","free_last_name":"Del Forno","norm_person":{"id":464,"first_name":"Davide","last_name":"Del Forno","full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1070718955","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"This volume offers an over-arching study of teh use of hypothetical arguments in ancient philosophy. It may claim to be pioneering inasmuch as it considers texts and authors from the classical period from the Hellenistic age, and from late antiquity. Its order is chronological: from Plato to Damascius. Its approach is plural: there are historico-critical essays and there are pieces of a more theoretical nature; the theoretical parts of the volume aim to explain what sort of thing a hypothesis is, what marks off arguments based upon hypotheses from other arguments, what rules of inference hypothetical argumentation invokes, what a hypothecial argument may hope to achieve, and so on. \r\nThe primary aspiration of the volume is to provide a wide view of a subject which, insofar as it is in itself semwhat technical, tends to attract a nice and narrow inspection. Thus one criterion which contributors have been encouraged to observe is this: the use of hypothetical arguments - or of the \"hypothetical method\" - should be considered not in isolation but rather in connection with the other dialectical procedures of division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. The volume makes a first step towrds a synthetic account of the use of hypotheses in ancient dialectic. ","btype":4,"date":"2011","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABkBQ3CmiH2yDCa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":464,"full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":355,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Bibliopolis","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition, 2011
By: Watts, Edward Jay, Lössl, Josef (Ed.), Watt, John W. (Ed.)

Title	Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2011
Published in	Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad
Pages	137-150
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, Edward Jay
Editor(s)	Lössl, Josef , Watt, John W.
Translator(s)

This paper explores the idea of translating the scholastic social experience by briefly considering the projects undertaken by four very different commentators active in the 520s and 530s. It begins by looking at Olympiodorus’ commentary on Plato’s Gorgias, one of the earliest and least polished works written by this productive and long-lived scholar. This commentary at times tends towards the informal and, because of this, it opens a window into the dynamics of an ancient classroom. Next, the argument turns to Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, a work that attempts to divorce completely the writing of a commentary from actual classroom experience. Simplicius’ programme shows how an author could adapt the commentary genre so that it served as a purely literate endeavour that neither reflected lessons once given in a classroom nor suggested a line of interpretation that could be directly followed in teaching. Finally, the paper will touch upon the very different translation projects undertaken by two contemporary transmitters of the Greek commentary tradition. It will initially consider how some facets of the project undertaken by Boethius suggest that he anticipates that his ideas will not be interpreted in a traditional classroom setting. It will then examine the puzzling decision of Sergius of Reshaina to write a Syriac commentary of an Aristotelian work for which no Syriac translation existed. This discussion will build upon earlier scholarship to show that Sergius probably had direct experience studying philosophy in classrooms and expected his work to be used in a classroom setting. These observations should allow us to better contextualize and appreciate the foundations upon which the medieval Syriac and Latin commentary traditions rest. [introduction p. 140]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tWH1ZboTbhA72ad

{"_index":"sire","_id":"440","_score":null,"_source":{"id":440,"authors_free":[{"id":590,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","free_first_name":"Edward Jay","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":591,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":359,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","free_first_name":"Josef","free_last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","norm_person":{"id":359,"first_name":"Josef","last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030028400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":592,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":358,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Watt, John W.","free_first_name":"John W.","free_last_name":"Watt","norm_person":{"id":358,"first_name":"John W.","last_name":"Watt","full_name":"Watt, John W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131435531","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"This paper explores the idea of translating the scholastic social experience by \r\nbriefly considering the projects undertaken by four very different commentators \r\nactive in the 520s and 530s. It begins by looking at Olympiodorus\u2019 commentary \r\non Plato\u2019s Gorgias, one of the earliest and least polished works written by this \r\nproductive and long-lived scholar. This commentary at times tends towards the \r\ninformal and, because of this, it opens a window into the dynamics of an ancient \r\nclassroom. Next, the argument turns to Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nPhysics, a work that attempts to divorce completely the writing of a commentary \r\nfrom actual classroom experience. Simplicius\u2019 programme shows how an author \r\ncould adapt the commentary genre so that it served as a purely literate endeavour \r\nthat neither reflected lessons once given in a classroom nor suggested a line of \r\ninterpretation that could be directly followed in teaching. Finally, the paper will \r\ntouch upon the very different translation projects undertaken by two contemporary \r\ntransmitters of the Greek commentary tradition. It will initially consider how some \r\nfacets of the project undertaken by Boethius suggest that he anticipates that his \r\nideas will not be interpreted in a traditional classroom setting. It will then examine \r\nthe puzzling decision of Sergius of Reshaina to write a Syriac commentary of an \r\nAristotelian work for which no Syriac translation existed. This discussion will \r\nbuild upon earlier scholarship to show that Sergius probably had direct experience \r\nstudying philosophy in classrooms and expected his work to be used in a classroom \r\nsetting. These observations should allow us to better contextualize and appreciate \r\nthe foundations upon which the medieval Syriac and Latin commentary traditions \r\nrest. [introduction p. 140]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tWH1ZboTbhA72ad","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":359,"full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":358,"full_name":"Watt, John W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":440,"section_of":271,"pages":"137-150","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":271,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"L\u00f6ssl2011b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This book brings together sixteen studies by internationally renowned scholars on the origins and early development of the Latin and Syriac biblical and philosophical commentary traditions. It casts light on the work of the founder of philosophical biblical commentary, Origen of Alexandria, and traces the developments of fourth- and fifth-century Latin commentary techniques in writers such as Marius Victorinus, Jerome and Boethius. The focus then moves east, to the beginnings of Syriac philosophical commentary and its relationship to theology in the works of Sergius of Reshaina, Probus and Paul the Persian, and the influence of this continuing tradition in the East up to the Arabic writings of al-Farabi. There are also chapters on the practice of teaching Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy in fifth-century Alexandria, on contemporaneous developments among Byzantine thinkers, and on the connections in Latin and Syriac traditions between translation (from Greek) and commentary. With its enormous breadth and the groundbreaking originality of its contributions, this volume is an indispensable resource not only for specialists, but also for all students and scholars interested in late-antique intellectual history, especially the practice of teaching and studying philosophy, the philosophical exegesis of the Bible, and the role of commentary in the post-Hellenistic world as far as the classical renaissance in Islam.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kR9UCCsaG87xlqQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":271,"pubplace":"Surrey \u2013 Burlington","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430–c. 550 C.E.), 2011
By: Watts, Edward Jay

Title	Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430–c. 550 C.E.)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2011
Journal	Classical Philology
Volume	106
Issue	3
Pages	226-244
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, Edward Jay
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Two Parallel narratives have tended to dominate modern recon- structions of the final century and a half of Platonism’s long ancient history. The first ties the dramatic intersection of pagan-Christian conflict, imperial policy, and philosophical principles to the end of Platonic teaching in the Eastern Roman Empire. 1 A second, distinct narrative analyzes Latin philosophical writings and traces the gradual unraveling of the ties that bound Latin philosophical culture and its Greek counterpart. 2 Each of these narratives has its own unique way of viewing and understanding Platonism. The first story culminates with the emperor Justinian’s closing of the Athe- nian Platonic school. It tends to present the affected philosophers as a small, isolated group of pagan intellectuals whose conflict with an increasingly as- sertive Christian political order pushed them to the empire’s margins. The second narrative ends with Boethius and Cassiodorus and stresses how their philosophical efforts both underlined Graeco-Latin philosophical separation and planted the seeds of medieval scholasticism. It sees Platonism primarily as a movement held together by scholastic practices and doctrinal continuities in which Latin writers participated only at some remove. This paper proposes a different, more expansive way to think about late antique philosophical life. Ancient philosophical culture was not defined ex- clusively by religious concerns and doctrinal ties. Beginning with the Old Academy of Xenocrates, Platonists shaped themselves into an intellectual community held together by doctrinal commonalities, a shared history, and defined personal relationships. 3 As the Hellenistic world developed and Platonism spread beyond its Athenian center, doctrine, history, and social ties stopped being conterminous. Platonists remained connected by a shared intellectual genealogy, but Platonism’s social and doctrinal aspects became decentralized as individual schools with their own interests grew up in vari- ous cities. 4 Although no direct institutional connection joined them to the Academy, late antique Platonists saw themselves as part of an old philosophi- cal lineage that reached back to Plato. 5 In their schools, the history of an individual circle’s past mingled with that of the larger intellectual tradition it claimed to have inherited. This amalgamated tradition was handed down from teachers to students in personal conversations that had a number of important, community-building effects. They attracted students to Platonic philosophy, encouraged them to identify with the movement’s past leaders, and influ- enced their ideas and actions once they joined a specific group. As this paper will show, the Platonic circles that these men and women formed were then defined as much by the relationships they formed and by the behaviors they exhibited as by the doctrines they espoused. [introduction p. 226-227]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rilfF7I9t8ywGlp

{"_index":"sire","_id":"443","_score":null,"_source":{"id":443,"authors_free":[{"id":595,"entry_id":443,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","free_first_name":"Edward Jay","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430\u2013c. 550 C.E.)","main_title":{"title":"Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430\u2013c. 550 C.E.)"},"abstract":"Two Parallel narratives have tended to dominate modern recon-\r\nstructions of the final century and a half of Platonism\u2019s long ancient \r\nhistory. The first ties the dramatic intersection of pagan-Christian \r\nconflict, imperial policy, and philosophical principles to the end of Platonic \r\nteaching in the Eastern Roman Empire. 1 A second, distinct narrative analyzes \r\nLatin philosophical writings and traces the gradual unraveling of the ties that \r\nbound Latin philosophical culture and its Greek counterpart. 2 Each of these \r\nnarratives has its own unique way of viewing and understanding Platonism. \r\nThe first story culminates with the emperor Justinian\u2019s closing of the Athe-\r\nnian Platonic school. It tends to present the affected philosophers as a small, \r\nisolated group of pagan intellectuals whose conflict with an increasingly as-\r\nsertive Christian political order pushed them to the empire\u2019s margins. The \r\nsecond narrative ends with Boethius and Cassiodorus and stresses how their \r\nphilosophical efforts both underlined Graeco-Latin philosophical separation \r\nand planted the seeds of medieval scholasticism. It sees Platonism primarily \r\nas a movement held together by scholastic practices and doctrinal continuities \r\nin which Latin writers participated only at some remove.\r\nThis paper proposes a different, more expansive way to think about late \r\nantique philosophical life. Ancient philosophical culture was not defined ex-\r\nclusively by religious concerns and doctrinal ties. Beginning with the Old \r\n\r\nAcademy of Xenocrates, Platonists shaped themselves into an intellectual \r\ncommunity held together by doctrinal commonalities, a shared history, and \r\ndefined personal relationships. 3 As the Hellenistic world developed and \r\nPlatonism spread beyond its Athenian center, doctrine, history, and social \r\nties stopped being conterminous. Platonists remained connected by a shared \r\nintellectual genealogy, but Platonism\u2019s social and doctrinal aspects became decentralized as individual schools with their own interests grew up in vari-\r\nous cities. 4 Although no direct institutional connection joined them to the \r\nAcademy, late antique Platonists saw themselves as part of an old philosophi-\r\ncal lineage that reached back to Plato. 5 In their schools, the history of an \r\nindividual circle\u2019s past mingled with that of the larger intellectual tradition it \r\nclaimed to have inherited. This amalgamated tradition was handed down from \r\nteachers to students in personal conversations that had a number of important, \r\ncommunity-building effects. They attracted students to Platonic philosophy, \r\nencouraged them to identify with the movement\u2019s past leaders, and influ-\r\nenced their ideas and actions once they joined a specific group. As this paper \r\nwill show, the Platonic circles that these men and women formed were then \r\ndefined as much by the relationships they formed and by the behaviors they \r\nexhibited as by the doctrines they espoused. [introduction p. 226-227]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rilfF7I9t8ywGlp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":443,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Philology","volume":"106","issue":"3","pages":"226-244"}},"sort":[2011]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.3–4’, 2011
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.3–4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

This is the first English translation of Simplicius' responses to Philoponus' Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World. The commentary is published in two volumes: Ian Mueller's previous book in the series, Simplicius: On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3, and this book on 1.3-4. Philoponus, the Christian, had argued that Aristotle's arguments do not succeed. For all they show to the contrary, Christianity may be right that the heavens were brought into existence by the only divine being and one moment in time, and will cease to exist at some future moment. Simplicius upholds the pagan view that the heavens are eternal and divine, and argues that their eternity is shown by their astronomical movements coupled with certain principles of Aristotle. The English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tNzmkPu2sTOT3n5

{"_index":"sire","_id":"96","_score":null,"_source":{"id":96,"authors_free":[{"id":113,"entry_id":96,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2274,"entry_id":96,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2275,"entry_id":96,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.3\u20134\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.3\u20134\u2019"},"abstract":"This is the first English translation of Simplicius' responses to Philoponus' Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World. The commentary is published in two volumes: Ian Mueller's previous book in the series, Simplicius: On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3, and this book on 1.3-4.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus, the Christian, had argued that Aristotle's arguments do not succeed. For all they show to the contrary, Christianity may be right that the heavens were brought into existence by the only divine being and one moment in time, and will cease to exist at some future moment. Simplicius upholds the pagan view that the heavens are eternal and divine, and argues that their eternity is shown by their astronomical movements coupled with certain principles of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tNzmkPu2sTOT3n5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":96,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.2–3’, 2011
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.2–3’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

One of the arguments in Aristotle's On the Heavens propounds that the world neither came to be nor will perish. This volume contains the pagan Neoplatonist Simplicius of Cilicia's commentary on the first part of this this important work. The commentary is notable and unusual because Simplicius includes in his discussion lengthy representations of the Christian John Philoponus' criticisms of Aristotle along with his own, frequently sarcastic, responses. This is the first complete translation into a modern language of Simplicius' commentary, and is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rY9ULws8UGvf5gU

{"_index":"sire","_id":"97","_score":null,"_source":{"id":97,"authors_free":[{"id":114,"entry_id":97,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2273,"entry_id":97,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2276,"entry_id":97,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.2\u20133\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.2\u20133\u2019"},"abstract":"One of the arguments in Aristotle's On the Heavens propounds that the world neither came to be nor will perish. This volume contains the pagan Neoplatonist Simplicius of Cilicia's commentary on the first part of this this important work. The commentary is notable and unusual because Simplicius includes in his discussion lengthy representations of the Christian John Philoponus' criticisms of Aristotle along with his own, frequently sarcastic, responses.\r\n\r\nThis is the first complete translation into a modern language of Simplicius' commentary, and is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rY9ULws8UGvf5gU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":97,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Alexandre d’Aphrodise, commentaire perdu à la « Physique » d’Aristote (livres IV−VIII) : les scholies byzantines. Édition, traduction et commentaire, 2011
By: Rashed, Marwan, Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Rashed, Marwan (Ed.)

Title	Alexandre d’Aphrodise, commentaire perdu à la « Physique » d’Aristote (livres IV−VIII) : les scholies byzantines. Édition, traduction et commentaire
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2011
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan , Alexander Aphrodisiensis
Editor(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Translator(s)

The no longer extant commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias (approx. 200 AD) on Aristotle’s Physics is one of the most important works of antiquity ‑, as a source text having influenced both the Greek commentators on Aristotle and ‒ through the mediation of Arab scholars ‑ Western medieval philosophy. This volume presents the first edition and study of nearly 700 recently discovered Byzantine scholia, which allow a more exact reconstruction of Alexander’s teachings on physics, and at the same time contribute to a better understanding of Aristotelianism and preclassical physics. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7D2ncBfgdXVfziU

{"_index":"sire","_id":"8","_score":null,"_source":{"id":8,"authors_free":[{"id":8,"entry_id":8,"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":2486,"entry_id":8,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":501,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Aphrodisiensis","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":501,"first_name":"Alexander","last_name":"Aphrodisiensis","full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118501887","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2488,"entry_id":8,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, commentaire perdu \u00e0 la \u00ab Physique \u00bb d\u2019Aristote (livres IV\u2212VIII) : les scholies byzantines. \u00c9dition, traduction et commentaire","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, commentaire perdu \u00e0 la \u00ab Physique \u00bb d\u2019Aristote (livres IV\u2212VIII) : les scholies byzantines. \u00c9dition, traduction et commentaire"},"abstract":"The no longer extant commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias (approx. 200 AD) on Aristotle\u2019s Physics is one of the most important works of antiquity \u2011, as a source text having influenced both the Greek commentators on Aristotle and \u2012 through the mediation of Arab scholars \u2011 Western medieval philosophy. This volume presents the first edition and study of nearly 700 recently discovered Byzantine scholia, which allow a more exact reconstruction of Alexander\u2019s teachings on physics, and at the same time contribute to a better understanding of Aristotelianism and preclassical physics. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7D2ncBfgdXVfziU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":501,"full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":8,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels), 2011
By: Gregoric, Pavel, Helmig, Christoph

Title	OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2011
Journal	Classical Quarterly
Volume	61
Issue	2
Pages	722-730
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gregoric, Pavel , Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The upshot of this article is that the treatment of the phrase ὁμόσε χωρεῖν in LSJ can be supplemented as far as later (Neoplatonic) authors are concerned. We have seen that the translation ‘to come to issue’ for the metaphorical meaning of the phrase is ambiguous and needs to be qualified according to the context. While the expression usually betrays an adversative connotation – to counter or refute an argument – later (Neoplatonic) authors also used it in a more neutral sense (‘to come to grips with an argument’). More to the point, the phrase can also have a concessive connotation, implying a concession or acceptance. It is precisely this latter connotation that we find in Simplicius’ Corollary on Place 601.26–8. [conclusion, p. 730]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8hDZ2Sqz5SgPL6n

{"_index":"sire","_id":"585","_score":null,"_source":{"id":585,"authors_free":[{"id":829,"entry_id":585,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":145,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","free_first_name":"Pavel","free_last_name":"Gregoric","norm_person":{"id":145,"first_name":"Pavel","last_name":"Gregoric","full_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":830,"entry_id":585,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Chistoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"OMO\u03a3E X\u03a9\u03a1EIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26\u20138 (Diels)","main_title":{"title":"OMO\u03a3E X\u03a9\u03a1EIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26\u20138 (Diels)"},"abstract":"The upshot of this article is that the treatment of the phrase \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in LSJ can be supplemented as far as later (Neoplatonic) authors are concerned. We have seen that the translation \u2018to come to issue\u2019 for the metaphorical meaning of the phrase is ambiguous and needs to be qualified according to the context. While the expression usually betrays an adversative connotation \u2013 to counter or refute an argument \u2013 later (Neoplatonic) authors also used it in a more neutral sense (\u2018to come to grips with an argument\u2019). More to the point, the phrase can also have a \r\nconcessive connotation, implying a concession or acceptance. It is precisely this \r\nlatter connotation that we find in Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place 601.26\u20138. [conclusion, p. 730]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8hDZ2Sqz5SgPL6n","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":145,"full_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":585,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Quarterly","volume":"61","issue":"2","pages":"722-730"}},"sort":[2011]}

Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2011
Journal	Études platoniciennes
Volume	8
Pages	145-160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Dans ce lemme, Simplicius n’emploie pas la méthode à laquelle il recourt habituellement pour concilier des doctrines. Entre Aristote et Platon, le problème ne provient pas d’une différence d'expression (lexis), derrière laquelle le sens fondamental (nous) serait identique. Chacun ne parle pas d’un problème semblable en des termes différents, pas plus que chacun ne traite d’une question différente mais en recourant à des termes similaires. Sans être formulée ici par Simplicius de façon explicite, la divergence apparaît à la première lecture : lorsqu’Aristote s’en prend à la doctrine des Idées, il ne peut pas, d’une certaine façon, viser le divin Platon, qui fut le premier à la soutenir. D’emblée, Simplicius élude le problème en redirigeant l’attaque contre d’autres adversaires. Concilier impose en effet de comprendre tout d’abord la véritable cible de l’objection, avant qu’il devienne possible d’en mesurer l’apport à l’égard de la doctrine générale des Idées. La conciliation des doctrines au cœur de l’exégèse d’Aristote suit un parcours précis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture littérale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de façon surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d’Aristote contre elle-même : en faire non plus un adversaire de la théorie des Idées séparées, mais l’auteur d’un critère de validité de la séparation. Dans un deuxième temps, notre exégète s’emploie à montrer la teneur authentiquement aristotélicienne de cette doctrine des Idées séparées. Il isole d’abord les caractères reconnus aux Idées, avant de démontrer qu’ils sont admis au sein même de la pensée d’Aristote. De plus, étant donné que l’enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste à trouver chez Aristote la double caractérisation des Idées que leur attribuent leurs partisans – être à la fois des causes et des modèles semblables pour les réalités naturelles –, il répertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et insère des éléments provenant de la tradition néoplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les réalités qui admettent des Formes séparées et celles qui n’en admettent pas. Comme souvent chez Simplicius, l’examen aboutit à l’énoncé d’un critère net et précis. Il doit permettre ici de démarquer l’homonymie vulgaire des Idées de l’éponymie légitime. La première résulte d’un dépouillement de la forme en dehors de la matière, mais qui continue à raisonner à partir d’ici-bas : elle cherche des Idées séparées pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais être complètement abstraites de la matière à laquelle elles sont liées. La seconde reconnaît que certains noms sont propres aux composés ici-bas et, par conséquent, ne correspondent à aucune réalité là-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Idées, à la fois causes et modèles des composés ici-bas, qui possèdent une subsistance séparée. Si le travail exégétique de Simplicius ne brille pas toujours par son génie philosophique, il s’emploie à chercher des solutions à certains des problèmes les plus complexes de la tradition platonicienne. Comme souvent, la solution qu’il propose, en dépit du bricolage doctrinal sur lequel elle se fonde, lève la difficulté d’une façon nette et précise. Il offre une nouvelle fois aux commentateurs que nous sommes une leçon à méditer. [conclusion p. 159-160]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ihW4uaycr2RFg3O

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1313","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1313,"authors_free":[{"id":1947,"entry_id":1313,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"Dans ce lemme, Simplicius n\u2019emploie pas la m\u00e9thode \u00e0 laquelle il recourt habituellement pour concilier des doctrines. Entre Aristote et Platon, le probl\u00e8me ne provient pas d\u2019une diff\u00e9rence d'expression (lexis), derri\u00e8re laquelle le sens fondamental (nous) serait identique. Chacun ne parle pas d\u2019un probl\u00e8me semblable en des termes diff\u00e9rents, pas plus que chacun ne traite d\u2019une question diff\u00e9rente mais en recourant \u00e0 des termes similaires. Sans \u00eatre formul\u00e9e ici par Simplicius de fa\u00e7on explicite, la divergence appara\u00eet \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re lecture : lorsqu\u2019Aristote s\u2019en prend \u00e0 la doctrine des Id\u00e9es, il ne peut pas, d\u2019une certaine fa\u00e7on, viser le divin Platon, qui fut le premier \u00e0 la soutenir. D\u2019embl\u00e9e, Simplicius \u00e9lude le probl\u00e8me en redirigeant l\u2019attaque contre d\u2019autres adversaires. Concilier impose en effet de comprendre tout d\u2019abord la v\u00e9ritable cible de l\u2019objection, avant qu\u2019il devienne possible d\u2019en mesurer l\u2019apport \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de la doctrine g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Id\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLa conciliation des doctrines au c\u0153ur de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Aristote suit un parcours pr\u00e9cis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture litt\u00e9rale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de fa\u00e7on surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d\u2019Aristote contre elle-m\u00eame : en faire non plus un adversaire de la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es, mais l\u2019auteur d\u2019un crit\u00e8re de validit\u00e9 de la s\u00e9paration. Dans un deuxi\u00e8me temps, notre ex\u00e9g\u00e8te s\u2019emploie \u00e0 montrer la teneur authentiquement aristot\u00e9licienne de cette doctrine des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es. Il isole d\u2019abord les caract\u00e8res reconnus aux Id\u00e9es, avant de d\u00e9montrer qu\u2019ils sont admis au sein m\u00eame de la pens\u00e9e d\u2019Aristote. De plus, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que l\u2019enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste \u00e0 trouver chez Aristote la double caract\u00e9risation des Id\u00e9es que leur attribuent leurs partisans \u2013 \u00eatre \u00e0 la fois des causes et des mod\u00e8les semblables pour les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles \u2013, il r\u00e9pertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et ins\u00e8re des \u00e9l\u00e9ments provenant de la tradition n\u00e9oplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s qui admettent des Formes s\u00e9par\u00e9es et celles qui n\u2019en admettent pas.\r\n\r\nComme souvent chez Simplicius, l\u2019examen aboutit \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u2019un crit\u00e8re net et pr\u00e9cis. Il doit permettre ici de d\u00e9marquer l\u2019homonymie vulgaire des Id\u00e9es de l\u2019\u00e9ponymie l\u00e9gitime. La premi\u00e8re r\u00e9sulte d\u2019un d\u00e9pouillement de la forme en dehors de la mati\u00e8re, mais qui continue \u00e0 raisonner \u00e0 partir d\u2019ici-bas : elle cherche des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais \u00eatre compl\u00e8tement abstraites de la mati\u00e8re \u00e0 laquelle elles sont li\u00e9es. La seconde reconna\u00eet que certains noms sont propres aux compos\u00e9s ici-bas et, par cons\u00e9quent, ne correspondent \u00e0 aucune r\u00e9alit\u00e9 l\u00e0-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Id\u00e9es, \u00e0 la fois causes et mod\u00e8les des compos\u00e9s ici-bas, qui poss\u00e8dent une subsistance s\u00e9par\u00e9e.\r\n\r\nSi le travail ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius ne brille pas toujours par son g\u00e9nie philosophique, il s\u2019emploie \u00e0 chercher des solutions \u00e0 certains des probl\u00e8mes les plus complexes de la tradition platonicienne. Comme souvent, la solution qu\u2019il propose, en d\u00e9pit du bricolage doctrinal sur lequel elle se fonde, l\u00e8ve la difficult\u00e9 d\u2019une fa\u00e7on nette et pr\u00e9cise. Il offre une nouvelle fois aux commentateurs que nous sommes une le\u00e7on \u00e0 m\u00e9diter. [conclusion p. 159-160]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ihW4uaycr2RFg3O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1313,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u00c9tudes platoniciennes","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"145-160"}},"sort":[2011]}

Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2011
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	5
Issue	1
Pages	85-158
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the συμφωνία in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle’s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works to reduce the dissonance between Archytas’ and Aristotle’s words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CcW2PJaT6w7pONA

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1312","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1312,"authors_free":[{"id":1946,"entry_id":1312,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation","main_title":{"title":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation"},"abstract":"Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle\u2019s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works to reduce the dissonance between Archytas\u2019 and Aristotle\u2019s words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CcW2PJaT6w7pONA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1312,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"85-158"}},"sort":[2011]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4, 2011
By: Simplicius Cilicius, Huby, Pamela M. (Ed.), Taylor, Christopher C. W. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius Cilicius
Editor(s)	Huby, Pamela M. , Taylor, Christopher C. W.
Translator(s)	Huby, Pamela M.(Huby, Pamela M.) , Taylor, Christopher C. W.(Taylor, Christopher C. W.) ,

In this volume Simplicius deals with Aristotle's account of the Presocratics, and for many of them he is our chief or even sole authority. He quotes at length from Melissus, Parmenides and Zeno, sometimes from their original works but also from later writers from Plato onwards, drawing particularly on Alexander's lost commentary on Aristotle's Physics and on Porphyry. Much of his approach is just scholarly, but in places he reveals his Neoplatonist affiliation and attempts to show the basic agreement among his predecessors in spite of their apparent differences. This volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary, and includes a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6GpvV97ruLyfIbX

ΑΠΑΓΩΓΗ: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno, 2011
By: Karasmanis, Vassilis, Longo, Angela (Ed.), Del Forno, Davide (Coll.) (Ed.)

Title	ΑΠΑΓΩΓΗ: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2011
Published in	Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy
Pages	21-41
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karasmanis, Vassilis
Editor(s)	Longo, Angela , Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)
Translator(s)

In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geometrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can be continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that «the method of geometers» to which Plato refers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vD5NrSUbtb9PXEC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1363","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1363,"authors_free":[{"id":2050,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":214,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","free_first_name":"Vassilis","free_last_name":"Karasmanis","norm_person":{"id":214,"first_name":"Vassilis","last_name":"Karasmanis","full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1190132680","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2403,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2404,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":464,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Davide","free_last_name":"Del Forno","norm_person":{"id":464,"first_name":"Davide","last_name":"Del Forno","full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1070718955","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno","main_title":{"title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno"},"abstract":"In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geo\u00admetrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can \r\nbe continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that \u00abthe method of geometers\u00bb to which Plato \r\nrefers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vD5NrSUbtb9PXEC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":214,"full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":464,"full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1363,"section_of":355,"pages":"21-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":355,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Longo2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This volume offers an over-arching study of teh use of hypothetical arguments in ancient philosophy. It may claim to be pioneering inasmuch as it considers texts and authors from the classical period from the Hellenistic age, and from late antiquity. Its order is chronological: from Plato to Damascius. Its approach is plural: there are historico-critical essays and there are pieces of a more theoretical nature; the theoretical parts of the volume aim to explain what sort of thing a hypothesis is, what marks off arguments based upon hypotheses from other arguments, what rules of inference hypothetical argumentation invokes, what a hypothecial argument may hope to achieve, and so on. \r\nThe primary aspiration of the volume is to provide a wide view of a subject which, insofar as it is in itself semwhat technical, tends to attract a nice and narrow inspection. Thus one criterion which contributors have been encouraged to observe is this: the use of hypothetical arguments - or of the \"hypothetical method\" - should be considered not in isolation but rather in connection with the other dialectical procedures of division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. The volume makes a first step towrds a synthetic account of the use of hypotheses in ancient dialectic. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABkBQ3CmiH2yDCa","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":355,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Bibliopolis","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1363,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"8","issue":"1","pages":"21-41"}},"sort":[2011]}

Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity, 2011
By: Chase, Michael

Title	Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2011
Journal	ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition
Volume	5
Issue	2
Pages	111-173
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ufpZP6w4wwJDnXs

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1511","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1511,"authors_free":[{"id":2624,"entry_id":1511,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ufpZP6w4wwJDnXs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1511,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u03a3\u03a7\u039f\u039b\u0397. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"2","pages":"111-173"}},"sort":[2011]}

Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment, 2010
By: McKirahan, Richard D.

Title	Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Ancient Philosophy
Volume	30
Issue	1
Pages	1-14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	McKirahan, Richard D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Having established the attributes of τὸ ἐόν in a series of arguments that end at B8.33, in the following eight lines Parmenides goes on to explore implications of his earlier claim that ‘you cannot know what is not...nor can you declare it’ (B2.7-8) in the light of the results obtained so far in B8. He begins by stating (B8.34) that ‘what is to be thought of is the same as that on account of which the thought is’ and goes on to give an argument for that claim (B8.35-38a). He then (B8.38b-41) states as a consequence of the claim, that ‘it (that is, τὸ ἐόν) has been named all things that mortals, persuaded that they are real, have posited both to be generated and to perish, both to be and not, and to change place and alter bright color’. His treatment of these issues, which concern the relations among reality, thought, and language, is one of the most philosophically important parts of his work; it is arguably the very heart of his philosophy. It is also one of the most obscure. The philosophical difficulties are compounded by the facts that the Greek text is uncertain and its grammatical structure is hard to make out. One of the principal issues in dispute is the relation between a line quoted in two ancient sources (Plato’s Theaetetus and a commentary on that work by an unknown author) and B8.38. Do those sources contain the true version of B8.38, an incorrect version of that line—a misquotation of the true version, or an altogether different line? B8.38 is a pivotal line in the passage B8.34-41; as indicated above, I believe that it contains the end of the first part of the passage and the beginning of the second, although it is commonly understood differently. The first step towards understanding the passage is to establish the text of B8.38. Ideally such a text would have substantial support in the ancient sources, it would be a line of the dactylic hexameter verse in which Parmenides wrote, it would make grammatical sense, it would give a good philosophical sense in the place where it occurs, it would suit Parmenides’ manner of presenting his ideas and arguments, and it would make sense in relation to the rest of his philosophy. In part I, I survey the evidence for B8.38 and argue that if the version reported by Plato and his commentator is accepted as a separate fragment, then one of the metrically acceptable versions of the line preserved in the manuscripts of Simplicius is more strongly supported than has previously been thought and, in fact, from this point of view it becomes the leading candidate. In part II, I argue that this version can be read in a way that is philologically unobjectionable, and I propose a way of reading it that fits well with its context, is characteristic of Parmenides’ philosophical style, and gives at least as good philosophical sense as previous construals do. I also defend my interpretation against recent claims by Kingsley, Vlastos, and Mourelatos. Finally, in part III, I take up the question of Cornford’s fragment (as the line quoted by Plato and his commentator is known). I boost the alleged fragment’s claim to authenticity by proposing a new way to understand the text that makes the line metrically and philologically unobjectionable and presenting two ways of construing it that make philosophical sense and make claims that do not repeat what Parmenides says elsewhere but accord well with his views. [introduction p. 1-2]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SqC5oF6JPgbuN3v

{"_index":"sire","_id":"989","_score":null,"_source":{"id":989,"authors_free":[{"id":1490,"entry_id":989,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":253,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"McKirahan","norm_person":{"id":253,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"McKirahan","full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131702254","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment"},"abstract":"Having established the attributes of \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd in a series of arguments that end at B8.33, in the following eight lines Parmenides goes on to explore implications of his earlier claim that \u2018you cannot know what is not...nor can you declare it\u2019 (B2.7-8) in the light of the results obtained so far in B8. He begins by stating (B8.34) that \u2018what is to be thought of is the same as that on account of which the thought is\u2019 and goes on to give an argument for that claim (B8.35-38a). He then (B8.38b-41) states as a consequence of the claim, that \u2018it (that is, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd) has been named all things that mortals, persuaded that they are real, have posited both to be generated and to perish, both to be and not, and to change place and alter bright color\u2019. His treatment of these issues, which concern the relations among reality, thought, and language, is one of the most philosophically important parts of his work; it is arguably the very heart of his philosophy. It is also one of the most obscure. The philosophical difficulties are compounded by the facts that the Greek text is uncertain and its grammatical structure is hard to make out.\r\n\r\nOne of the principal issues in dispute is the relation between a line quoted in two ancient sources (Plato\u2019s Theaetetus and a commentary on that work by an unknown author) and B8.38. Do those sources contain the true version of B8.38, an incorrect version of that line\u2014a misquotation of the true version, or an altogether different line? B8.38 is a pivotal line in the passage B8.34-41; as indicated above, I believe that it contains the end of the first part of the passage and the beginning of the second, although it is commonly understood differently.\r\n\r\nThe first step towards understanding the passage is to establish the text of B8.38. Ideally such a text would have substantial support in the ancient sources, it would be a line of the dactylic hexameter verse in which Parmenides wrote, it would make grammatical sense, it would give a good philosophical sense in the place where it occurs, it would suit Parmenides\u2019 manner of presenting his ideas and arguments, and it would make sense in relation to the rest of his philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn part I, I survey the evidence for B8.38 and argue that if the version reported by Plato and his commentator is accepted as a separate fragment, then one of the metrically acceptable versions of the line preserved in the manuscripts of Simplicius is more strongly supported than has previously been thought and, in fact, from this point of view it becomes the leading candidate. In part II, I argue that this version can be read in a way that is philologically unobjectionable, and I propose a way of reading it that fits well with its context, is characteristic of Parmenides\u2019 philosophical style, and gives at least as good philosophical sense as previous construals do. I also defend my interpretation against recent claims by Kingsley, Vlastos, and Mourelatos.\r\n\r\nFinally, in part III, I take up the question of Cornford\u2019s fragment (as the line quoted by Plato and his commentator is known). I boost the alleged fragment\u2019s claim to authenticity by proposing a new way to understand the text that makes the line metrically and philologically unobjectionable and presenting two ways of construing it that make philosophical sense and make claims that do not repeat what Parmenides says elsewhere but accord well with his views. [introduction p. 1-2]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SqC5oF6JPgbuN3v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":253,"full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":989,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"30","issue":"1","pages":"1-14"}},"sort":[2010]}

Cosmología, cosmogonía y teogonía en el poema de Parménides, 2010
By: Bredlow, Luis-Andrés

Title	Cosmología, cosmogonía y teogonía en el poema de Parménides
Type	Article
Language	Spanish
Date	2010
Journal	Emerita: Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clasíca
Volume	78
Issue	2
Pages	275-297
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bredlow, Luis-Andrés
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides’ system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius’ reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides’ cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and – as I will try to show – in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4). [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IstgO7KI8zaKM84

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1071","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1071,"authors_free":[{"id":1625,"entry_id":1071,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":17,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_last_name":"Bredlow","norm_person":{"id":17,"first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","last_name":"Bredlow","full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129940305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides","main_title":{"title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides"},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius\u2019 reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and \u2013 as I will try to show \u2013 in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4). [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IstgO7KI8zaKM84","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":17,"full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1071,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Emerita: Revista de Ling\u00fc\u00edstica y Filolog\u00eda Clas\u00edca","volume":"78","issue":"2","pages":"275-297"}},"sort":[2010]}

Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus, 2010
By: Sorabji, Richard

Title	Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2010
Published in	Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Pages	1-40
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Since 1987, when the first edition of this book appeared, there have been new findings both about Philoponus' thought and about his milieu. In this Introduction to the second edition, I will start with the milieu. There has been a major archaeological discovery, nothing less than the lecture rooms of the Alexandrian school. It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identified the lecture rooms of the 6th-century Alexandrian school, surprisingly well preserved. Although the first few rooms had been excavated 25 years earlier, the identification had become possible only now. By 2008, 20 rooms had been excavated. 20 is the number of rooms reported by a 12th-century source writing in Arabic, Abd el-Latif, but there may be more. [introduction p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UotikAt6Giet2tb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"796","_score":null,"_source":{"id":796,"authors_free":[{"id":1174,"entry_id":796,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus"},"abstract":"Since 1987, when the first edition of this book appeared, there have been new findings both about Philoponus' thought and about his milieu. In this Introduction to the second edition, I will start with the milieu. There has been a major archaeological discovery, nothing less than the lecture rooms of the Alexandrian school. It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identified the lecture rooms of the 6th-century Alexandrian school, surprisingly well preserved. Although the first few rooms had been excavated 25 years earlier, the identification had become possible only now. By 2008, 20 rooms had been excavated. 20 is the number of rooms reported by a 12th-century source writing in Arabic, Abd el-Latif, but there may be more. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UotikAt6Giet2tb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":796,"section_of":184,"pages":"1-40","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2010]}

I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio, 2010
By: Saudelli, Lucia

Title	I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2010
Journal	Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica
Volume	96
Issue	3
Pages	127-137
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Saudelli, Lucia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/H7VTl0R3s0lDL6j

{"_index":"sire","_id":"855","_score":null,"_source":{"id":855,"authors_free":[{"id":1259,"entry_id":855,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":311,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","free_first_name":"Lucia","free_last_name":"Saudelli","norm_person":{"id":311,"first_name":"Lucia","last_name":"Saudelli","full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047619067","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio"},"abstract":"This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H7VTl0R3s0lDL6j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":311,"full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":855,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica","volume":"96","issue":"3","pages":"127-137"}},"sort":[2010]}

What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers, 2010
By: Mueller, Ian, Mohr, Richard D. (Ed.), Sattler, Barbara M. (Ed.)

Title	What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2010
Published in	One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today
Pages	151-163
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mueller, Ian
Editor(s)	Mohr, Richard D. , Sattler, Barbara M.
Translator(s)

In this essay, I want to say a very few things about Neo-Platonist interpretations of the Timaeus relating to the receptacle and the geometric characterization of earth, water, air, and fire. The starting point of my reflections was translating Simplicius’ commentary on books 3 and 4 of Aristotle’s On the Heavens, and much of what I say is based upon that. But I will also be invoking a passage from his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and some material in John Philoponus and Proclus. I begin with some remarks about Simplicius’ basic conception of what we call Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato. At the beginning of his extensive discussion of Aristotle’s objections to Plato’s geometrical chemistry, Simplicius says: The disagreement between the philosophers is not substantive, but Aristotle pays attention to those who understand Plato superficially and frequently raises objections against the apparent meaning of what Plato says and what can be understood in a worse way, and he seems to be refuting Plato. (Simplicius, On Aristotle’s On the Heavens, 640, 28–31) Simplicius’ point is not that Aristotle is a superficial reader, but that he raises objections to the surface meaning of what Plato says in order to prevent other people from espousing those superficial readings. In connection with another passage in On the Heavens in which Aristotle connects Plato’s association of the cube with earth to earth’s stability, Simplicius refers to Aristotle’s earlier criticism of Plato for allegedly saying that the earth has a winding motion around the pole: It is worth pointing out that Aristotle does know that Plato thinks the earth is steady since it was Plato who said that it is a cube because it is stable and remains fixed. Consequently, when in the preceding book he asserted that the earth is said by Timaeus to be wound and move , he was confronting those who understand Timaeus’ words in this way. (Simplicius, On Aristotle’s On the Heavens, 662, 31–663, 2) So, Aristotle knows and shares Plato’s true view, and his criticisms are all directed at the superficial readings of Plato made by others. [introduction p. 151-152]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/26CCMYYQai0hS5Z

{"_index":"sire","_id":"952","_score":null,"_source":{"id":952,"authors_free":[{"id":1429,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1430,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":271,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"Mohr","norm_person":{"id":271,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"Mohr","full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132154315","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1431,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":272,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","free_first_name":"Barbara M.","free_last_name":"Sattler","norm_person":{"id":272,"first_name":"Barbara M.","last_name":"Sattler","full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13210749X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers","main_title":{"title":"What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers"},"abstract":"In this essay, I want to say a very few things about Neo-Platonist interpretations of the Timaeus relating to the receptacle and the geometric characterization of earth, water, air, and fire. The starting point of my reflections was translating Simplicius\u2019 commentary on books 3 and 4 of Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, and much of what I say is based upon that. But I will also be invoking a passage from his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and some material in John Philoponus and Proclus. I begin with some remarks about Simplicius\u2019 basic conception of what we call Aristotle\u2019s criticisms of Plato. At the beginning of his extensive discussion of Aristotle\u2019s objections to Plato\u2019s geometrical chemistry, Simplicius says:\r\n\r\n The disagreement between the philosophers <Plato and Aristotle>\r\n is not substantive, but Aristotle pays attention to those who\r\n understand Plato superficially and frequently raises objections\r\n against the apparent meaning of what Plato says and what can\r\n be understood in a worse way, and he seems to be refuting Plato.\r\n (Simplicius, On Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, 640, 28\u201331)\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 point is not that Aristotle is a superficial reader, but that he raises objections to the surface meaning of what Plato says in order to prevent other people from espousing those superficial readings. In connection with another passage in On the Heavens in which Aristotle connects Plato\u2019s association of the cube with earth to earth\u2019s stability, Simplicius refers to Aristotle\u2019s earlier criticism of Plato for allegedly saying that the earth has a winding motion around the pole:\r\n\r\n It is worth pointing out that Aristotle does know that Plato thinks\r\n the earth is steady since it was Plato who said that it is a cube\r\n because it is stable and remains fixed. Consequently, when in\r\n the preceding book he asserted that the earth is said by Timaeus\r\n to be wound and move <around the pole>, he was confronting\r\n those who understand Timaeus\u2019 words in this way.\r\n (Simplicius, On Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, 662, 31\u2013663, 2)\r\n\r\nSo, Aristotle knows and shares Plato\u2019s true view, and his criticisms are all directed at the superficial readings of Plato made by others. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/26CCMYYQai0hS5Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":271,"full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":272,"full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":952,"section_of":300,"pages":"151-163","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":300,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato\u2019s Timaeus Today","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mohr2010","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"This collection of original essays brings together philosophers, classicists, physicists, and architects to reveal the meaning and assess the impact of one of the most profound and influential works of Western letters - Plato's Timaeus, a work that comes as close as any to giving a comprehensive account of life, the universe, and everything, and does so in a startlingly narrow compass.\r\n\r\nThe Timaeus gives an account of the nature of god and creation, a theory of knowledge, a taxonomy of the soul and perception, and an account of objects that gods and soul might encounter... [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tmvgz6Nr6OBQMua","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":300,"pubplace":"Las Vegas - Zurich - Athens","publisher":"Parmenides Publishing","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2010]}

Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?, 2010
By: Morison, Benjamin

Title	Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	55
Issue	1
Pages	68-103
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Morison, Benjamin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GbvOxzvRrwDkAHd

{"_index":"sire","_id":"954","_score":null,"_source":{"id":954,"authors_free":[{"id":1433,"entry_id":954,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":265,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morison, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Morison","norm_person":{"id":265,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Morison","full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1221826255","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?","main_title":{"title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?"},"abstract":"It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GbvOxzvRrwDkAHd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":265,"full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":954,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"68-103"}},"sort":[2010]}

Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority, 2010
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Antiquorum Philosophial
Volume	3
Pages	121-136
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper, I have made the case for the position that Simplicius is more independent as a philosophical writer than modern scholarship has allowed. As soon as he became used as a source for Presocratic philosophy, attention was deflected from his own contributions to the philosophical debate. In broad terms, Simplicius remains loyal to his teachers, but it would be wrong to see him as a mindless copyist or a slavish collector of doxai. This means that there is room for changing our view of him. Late Platonism may have formed a united front, but this does not preclude critical reading and assessment of previous views and disagreements among themselves. I have attempted to illustrate the extent to which Simplicius found fault with and criticized his fellow Platonists and other commentators. That this was not always done by head-on confrontation may be explained by the historical situation he found himself in: firstly, he had to cope with an immensely learned and copious tradition, a task which he took on with considerable courage and resourcefulness; secondly, he was forced to choose a defensive line of argument with respect to the presentation of pagan philosophy in a world that had been taken over by Christianity. This circumstance contributed importantly to his predicament and the ensuing strategy. As I concluded in my summing up of his methodology: "In trying to defend the Platonist point of view in contradistinction to the Christian outlook, he uses polemic to persuade and refute, and comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytize." The extent to which he is seen to dissent would need further confirmation, but the preliminary evidence suggests that it is in proportion to the difficult balancing act forced upon him by his historical position. Philosophically, he is a seventh-generation Platonist since Plotinus taught his new doctrine, and ideologically, he finds himself "surrounded" by an increasingly hostile world. Given the sheer amount of material canvassed and processed, it is a miracle he managed to express a personal view at all. As the works stand, he does so cautiously and judiciously. In his modus operandi, he comes close to the ideal commentator outlined in In Cat. 7.23–32, with the added bonus that he offers quotations to support his arguments. A partial explanation for his "cautious" comments, offered as muted disagreement, could be that criticizing fellow Platonists too strongly might weaken one’s overall position. A final peculiarity also hints at his ability to take a more objective stance: Simplicius occasionally adopts a detached view of the Platonists, referring to them as "the Platonists do this or that," as if he were not to be counted among them. This coincides with his unusually comprehensive scope of source analysis, an approach which was bound to produce tensions and hence difficulties in presenting a unified picture of the philosophical tradition, whether it was meant to be Greek (a wide perspective) or Platonist (a narrow perspective). It can be concluded, therefore, that respect for authority can go hand in hand with criticism and dissent in Simplicius, without jeopardizing the fundamental tenets of Platonism. [conclusion p. 133]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YpEQGyC0xI7815g

{"_index":"sire","_id":"966","_score":null,"_source":{"id":966,"authors_free":[{"id":1451,"entry_id":966,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have made the case for the position that Simplicius is more independent as a philosophical writer than modern scholarship has allowed. As soon as he became used as a source for Presocratic philosophy, attention was deflected from his own contributions to the philosophical debate. In broad terms, Simplicius remains loyal to his teachers, but it would be wrong to see him as a mindless copyist or a slavish collector of doxai. This means that there is room for changing our view of him. Late Platonism may have formed a united front, but this does not preclude critical reading and assessment of previous views and disagreements among themselves. I have attempted to illustrate the extent to which Simplicius found fault with and criticized his fellow Platonists and other commentators.\r\n\r\nThat this was not always done by head-on confrontation may be explained by the historical situation he found himself in: firstly, he had to cope with an immensely learned and copious tradition, a task which he took on with considerable courage and resourcefulness; secondly, he was forced to choose a defensive line of argument with respect to the presentation of pagan philosophy in a world that had been taken over by Christianity. This circumstance contributed importantly to his predicament and the ensuing strategy. As I concluded in my summing up of his methodology: \"In trying to defend the Platonist point of view in contradistinction to the Christian outlook, he uses polemic to persuade and refute, and comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytize.\"\r\n\r\nThe extent to which he is seen to dissent would need further confirmation, but the preliminary evidence suggests that it is in proportion to the difficult balancing act forced upon him by his historical position. Philosophically, he is a seventh-generation Platonist since Plotinus taught his new doctrine, and ideologically, he finds himself \"surrounded\" by an increasingly hostile world. Given the sheer amount of material canvassed and processed, it is a miracle he managed to express a personal view at all. As the works stand, he does so cautiously and judiciously. In his modus operandi, he comes close to the ideal commentator outlined in In Cat. 7.23\u201332, with the added bonus that he offers quotations to support his arguments.\r\n\r\nA partial explanation for his \"cautious\" comments, offered as muted disagreement, could be that criticizing fellow Platonists too strongly might weaken one\u2019s overall position. A final peculiarity also hints at his ability to take a more objective stance: Simplicius occasionally adopts a detached view of the Platonists, referring to them as \"the Platonists do this or that,\" as if he were not to be counted among them. This coincides with his unusually comprehensive scope of source analysis, an approach which was bound to produce tensions and hence difficulties in presenting a unified picture of the philosophical tradition, whether it was meant to be Greek (a wide perspective) or Platonist (a narrow perspective).\r\n\r\nIt can be concluded, therefore, that respect for authority can go hand in hand with criticism and dissent in Simplicius, without jeopardizing the fundamental tenets of Platonism. [conclusion p. 133]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YpEQGyC0xI7815g","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":966,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophial","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"121-136"}},"sort":[2010]}

Simplicius on the "Theaetetus" ("In Physica" 17,38-18,23 Diels), 2010
By: Menn, Stephen

Title	Simplicius on the "Theaetetus" ("In Physica" 17,38-18,23 Diels)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	55
Issue	3
Pages	255-270
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle in Physics 1,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate "cognition according to the definition and through the elements," and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is ἐπιστήμη. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for ἐπιστήμη and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to recon struct Simplicius' reading of "Socrates' Dream," its place in the Theaetetus larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dEWYys9PQqr0WtF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"977","_score":null,"_source":{"id":977,"authors_free":[{"id":1476,"entry_id":977,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the \"Theaetetus\" (\"In Physica\" 17,38-18,23 Diels)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the \"Theaetetus\" (\"In Physica\" 17,38-18,23 Diels)"},"abstract":"Aristotle in Physics 1,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate \"cognition according to the definition and through the elements,\" and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to recon struct Simplicius' reading of \"Socrates' Dream,\" its place in the Theaetetus larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dEWYys9PQqr0WtF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":977,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"55","issue":"3","pages":"255-270"}},"sort":[2010]}

Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator, 2010
By: Menn, Stephen

Title	Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	The Classical World
Volume	104
Issue	1
Pages	117-118
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Most people who have heard of Simplicius know two things about him: he was a very learned man who included many quotations and reports of others' views in his writing, thus becoming one of our main sources for the pre-Socratics; but, unfortunately, he was a Neoplatonist, and his testimony is therefore to some degree suspect. So Simplicius has been studied more for the sake of assessing testimony about earlier philosophers than for his own sake; this is the first full-scale monograph on Simplicius in English, although virtually simultaneous with Pantelis Golitsis' Les commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la "Physique" d'Aristote: tradition et innovation (Berlin, 2008). Simplicius, however, is not so neglected or undervalued as this might suggest: his projects of harmonizing Plato and Aristotle (and sometimes other philosophers), and of defending pagan philosophy against Christian attacks (leading to his polemics against Philoponus), have been much studied both by Anglophone scholars around Richard Sorabji and by Francophone scholars around Ilsetraut Hadot and Philippe Hoffmann. "Neoplatonist" is no longer an insult, and it now seems normal that in later antiquity reading and commenting on Plato and Aristotle should also be a way of doing philosophy. If Simplicius' religious and harmonistic aims, and his scholarly methods, are not ours, we are interested in alternatives to our own way of doing things. But we have lacked a systematic study of Simplicius' methods in his commentaries, and of his strategies for using authors besides Plato and Aristotle (not just the pre-Socratics, but also Theophrastus and Eudemus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, and Proclus and his school, whom Baltussen discusses in turn). Baltussen's aims are laudable, but his book is not a safe guide; Golitsis, while not comprehensive, is much better. Baltussen pursues some good questions: why does Simplicius quote so much (just to save the texts from the wave of Christian barbarism?), what are his sources, and how does he handle so much information? (Actually, Simplicius discusses no more writers than Proclus, but he cites verbatim much more, and tries to go beyond secondary sources.) Baltussen needlessly defends Simplicius against the bizarre idea that he knew the pre-Socratics only through Alexander of Aphrodisias. However, it is true that Simplicius sometimes uses secondary sources, and also that Alexander was very important for him. Baltussen says that "overall Simplicius considered [Alexander a] reliable guide and interpreter... Disagreement is expressed in muted form and head-on confrontation is rare" (192). This both understates and overstates Simplicius' relation to Alexander and misses his method as a commentator. Simplicius' Physics and De Caelo commentaries are in effect metacommentaries on Alexander's lost commentaries (his Categories commentary starts instead from Porphyry and Iamblichus). One important hermeneutic principle for Simplicius is that each treatise must have a single primary object (skopos), such that everything else it discusses is discussed on account of some relation to that object. Baltussen discusses this principle but misleadingly. On p. 117, he has Simplicius attribute to Alexander (top of the page) the view that the skopos of the De Caelo is the world, and (lower down) the view that it is the four elements; attribute to Iamblichus the view that it is the universe; and Simplicius himself endorse the view that it is "both the universe... and the four elements." In fact, Simplicius attributes to Iamblichus the view that it is only the fifth (heavenly) body, and to Alexander the view that it is both the world and the five simple bodies. Simplicius himself says that the skopos is just the five simple bodies. The mistake is particularly serious because Baltussen suggests that Simplicius does not really make up his mind and opts for plural skopoi, when Simplicius emphatically insists that each treatise must have a single skopos and criticizes Alexander for breaking that rule. (On p. 36, Baltussen seems to suggest that Simplicius took the single-skopos rule from Alexander, but in the passage he cites Simplicius is criticizing Alexander.) On p. 23 and 158, Syrianus (died ca. 437 A.D.) is listed among Simplicius' teachers. On p. 81, the inset translation of In Physica 161.23-162.2 turns the text into nonsense, taking proéchthēsan (from proagō) as if it were from a compound of achthomai ("am grieved") and misunderstanding Simplicius' term proéchthēsan ("charitable interpretation"). (Baltussen doesn't usually quote the Greek, so the reader must be on guard.) On p. 190 (and 175), he turns Simplicius' comments on constructing an equilateral triangle into a discussion of the first postulate, to draw a straight line. He notes skeptically that Simplicius "mentions a work 'On Prayer' by Aristotle... in which he claims that Aristotle knew of a transcendent intellect" (182), but On Prayer is well-attested, and of course Aristotle believed in a transcendent intellect; Simplicius' audacious claim in this passage is that Aristotle, like Plato, believed in a divine first principle above intellect and being. Baltussen's discussions of Philoponus and Christianity are particularly misleading. On p. 185, he cites Leslie MacCoull as putting some of Philoponus' arguments in the context of "the theological debate among Arrianists [sic]", but Philoponus was a Monophysite, the Arians had nothing to do with it, and MacCoull does not say they did. Baltussen also speaks here of Philoponus' aims in his "polemic with Simplicius," but there seems to be no evidence that Philoponus knew of Simplicius' existence. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nycXB8DgJkcMbQt

{"_index":"sire","_id":"978","_score":null,"_source":{"id":978,"authors_free":[{"id":1477,"entry_id":978,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"Most people who have heard of Simplicius know two things about him: he was a very learned man who included many quotations and reports of others' views in his writing, thus becoming one of our main sources for the pre-Socratics; but, unfortunately, he was a Neoplatonist, and his testimony is therefore to some degree suspect. So Simplicius has been studied more for the sake of assessing testimony about earlier philosophers than for his own sake; this is the first full-scale monograph on Simplicius in English, although virtually simultaneous with Pantelis Golitsis' Les commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 la \"Physique\" d'Aristote: tradition et innovation (Berlin, 2008).\r\n\r\nSimplicius, however, is not so neglected or undervalued as this might suggest: his projects of harmonizing Plato and Aristotle (and sometimes other philosophers), and of defending pagan philosophy against Christian attacks (leading to his polemics against Philoponus), have been much studied both by Anglophone scholars around Richard Sorabji and by Francophone scholars around Ilsetraut Hadot and Philippe Hoffmann. \"Neoplatonist\" is no longer an insult, and it now seems normal that in later antiquity reading and commenting on Plato and Aristotle should also be a way of doing philosophy. If Simplicius' religious and harmonistic aims, and his scholarly methods, are not ours, we are interested in alternatives to our own way of doing things. But we have lacked a systematic study of Simplicius' methods in his commentaries, and of his strategies for using authors besides Plato and Aristotle (not just the pre-Socratics, but also Theophrastus and Eudemus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, and Proclus and his school, whom Baltussen discusses in turn).\r\n\r\nBaltussen's aims are laudable, but his book is not a safe guide; Golitsis, while not comprehensive, is much better. Baltussen pursues some good questions: why does Simplicius quote so much (just to save the texts from the wave of Christian barbarism?), what are his sources, and how does he handle so much information? (Actually, Simplicius discusses no more writers than Proclus, but he cites verbatim much more, and tries to go beyond secondary sources.) Baltussen needlessly defends Simplicius against the bizarre idea that he knew the pre-Socratics only through Alexander of Aphrodisias. However, it is true that Simplicius sometimes uses secondary sources, and also that Alexander was very important for him. Baltussen says that \"overall Simplicius considered [Alexander a] reliable guide and interpreter... Disagreement is expressed in muted form and head-on confrontation is rare\" (192). This both understates and overstates Simplicius' relation to Alexander and misses his method as a commentator.\r\n\r\nSimplicius' Physics and De Caelo commentaries are in effect metacommentaries on Alexander's lost commentaries (his Categories commentary starts instead from Porphyry and Iamblichus). One important hermeneutic principle for Simplicius is that each treatise must have a single primary object (skopos), such that everything else it discusses is discussed on account of some relation to that object. Baltussen discusses this principle but misleadingly. On p. 117, he has Simplicius attribute to Alexander (top of the page) the view that the skopos of the De Caelo is the world, and (lower down) the view that it is the four elements; attribute to Iamblichus the view that it is the universe; and Simplicius himself endorse the view that it is \"both the universe... and the four elements.\"\r\n\r\nIn fact, Simplicius attributes to Iamblichus the view that it is only the fifth (heavenly) body, and to Alexander the view that it is both the world and the five simple bodies. Simplicius himself says that the skopos is just the five simple bodies. The mistake is particularly serious because Baltussen suggests that Simplicius does not really make up his mind and opts for plural skopoi, when Simplicius emphatically insists that each treatise must have a single skopos and criticizes Alexander for breaking that rule. (On p. 36, Baltussen seems to suggest that Simplicius took the single-skopos rule from Alexander, but in the passage he cites Simplicius is criticizing Alexander.)\r\n\r\nOn p. 23 and 158, Syrianus (died ca. 437 A.D.) is listed among Simplicius' teachers. On p. 81, the inset translation of In Physica 161.23-162.2 turns the text into nonsense, taking pro\u00e9chth\u0113san (from proag\u014d) as if it were from a compound of achthomai (\"am grieved\") and misunderstanding Simplicius' term pro\u00e9chth\u0113san (\"charitable interpretation\"). (Baltussen doesn't usually quote the Greek, so the reader must be on guard.)\r\n\r\nOn p. 190 (and 175), he turns Simplicius' comments on constructing an equilateral triangle into a discussion of the first postulate, to draw a straight line. He notes skeptically that Simplicius \"mentions a work 'On Prayer' by Aristotle... in which he claims that Aristotle knew of a transcendent intellect\" (182), but On Prayer is well-attested, and of course Aristotle believed in a transcendent intellect; Simplicius' audacious claim in this passage is that Aristotle, like Plato, believed in a divine first principle above intellect and being.\r\n\r\nBaltussen's discussions of Philoponus and Christianity are particularly misleading. On p. 185, he cites Leslie MacCoull as putting some of Philoponus' arguments in the context of \"the theological debate among Arrianists [sic]\", but Philoponus was a Monophysite, the Arians had nothing to do with it, and MacCoull does not say they did. Baltussen also speaks here of Philoponus' aims in his \"polemic with Simplicius,\" but there seems to be no evidence that Philoponus knew of Simplicius' existence. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nycXB8DgJkcMbQt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":978,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical World","volume":"104","issue":"1","pages":"117-118"}},"sort":[2010]}

One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today, 2010
By: Mohr, Richard D. (Ed.), Sattler, Barbara M. (Ed.)

Title	One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2010
Publication Place	Las Vegas - Zurich - Athens
Publisher	Parmenides Publishing
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Mohr, Richard D. , Sattler, Barbara M.
Translator(s)

This collection of original essays brings together philosophers, classicists, physicists, and architects to reveal the meaning and assess the impact of one of the most profound and influential works of Western letters - Plato's Timaeus, a work that comes as close as any to giving a comprehensive account of life, the universe, and everything, and does so in a startlingly narrow compass. The Timaeus gives an account of the nature of god and creation, a theory of knowledge, a taxonomy of the soul and perception, and an account of objects that gods and soul might encounter... [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tmvgz6Nr6OBQMua

{"_index":"sire","_id":"300","_score":null,"_source":{"id":300,"authors_free":[{"id":373,"entry_id":300,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":271,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"Mohr","norm_person":{"id":271,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"Mohr","full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132154315","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":374,"entry_id":300,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":272,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","free_first_name":"Barbara M.","free_last_name":"Sattler","norm_person":{"id":272,"first_name":"Barbara M.","last_name":"Sattler","full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13210749X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato\u2019s Timaeus Today","main_title":{"title":"One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato\u2019s Timaeus Today"},"abstract":"This collection of original essays brings together philosophers, classicists, physicists, and architects to reveal the meaning and assess the impact of one of the most profound and influential works of Western letters - Plato's Timaeus, a work that comes as close as any to giving a comprehensive account of life, the universe, and everything, and does so in a startlingly narrow compass.\r\n\r\nThe Timaeus gives an account of the nature of god and creation, a theory of knowledge, a taxonomy of the soul and perception, and an account of objects that gods and soul might encounter... [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tmvgz6Nr6OBQMua","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":271,"full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":272,"full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":300,"pubplace":"Las Vegas - Zurich - Athens","publisher":"Parmenides Publishing","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2010]}

Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition, 2010
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2010
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London
Series	BICS Supplement
Volume	103
Edition No.	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient commentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the Aristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as a Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on later philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and natural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the rapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as the lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the interaction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his milieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars and tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his theological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the relation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related concepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable and wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late ancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most valuable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00

{"_index":"sire","_id":"184","_score":null,"_source":{"id":184,"authors_free":[{"id":1830,"entry_id":184,"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":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition"},"abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","btype":4,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2010]}

I commentari all'Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo, 2010
By: Militello, Chiara

Title	I commentari all'Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2010
Publication Place	Roma
Publisher	Bonanno Editore
Series	Analecta Humanitatis
Volume	18
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Militello, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Oggetto di questo volume sono i commentari all.Isagoge di Porfirio che furono redatti tra il V e il VII secolo d.C. da Ammonio, Elia, Davide, pseudo-Elia (tutti rappresentanti della Scuola di Alessandria) e Boezio (che riprese nel mondo latino la tradizione delle Scuole neoplatoniche ateniese e alessandrina). All'analisi della struttura generale dei commentari si accompagna lo studio e la contestualizzazione all'interno del complesso sviluppo della tradizione esegetica (che comprende tanto fattori di continuità quanto momenti di rottura) dei passi che, vertendo sui concetti logico-metafisici di genere, specie e individuo, esemplificano le diverse soluzioni al problema dell'armonizzazione tra aristotelismo e platonismo. [author's abstract] Translation: The subject of this volume is the commentaries on Porphyry's Isagoge, which were written between the 5th and 7th centuries AD by Ammonius, Elias, David, pseudo-Elias (all representatives of the Alexandrian School), and Boethius (who brought the tradition of the Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonic Schools into the Latin world). Alongside the analysis of the general structure of the commentaries, the study also examines and contextualizes passages within the complex development of the exegetical tradition (which includes both factors of continuity and moments of rupture). These passages, focusing on the logical-metaphysical concepts of genus, species, and individual, illustrate various solutions to the problem of harmonizing Aristotelianism and Platonism.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oU9mkubdz6V4nsQ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1,"authors_free":[{"id":1826,"entry_id":1,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":2,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Militello, Chiara","free_first_name":"Militello","free_last_name":"Chiara","norm_person":{"id":2,"first_name":"Chiara ","last_name":"Militello ","full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666461X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"I commentari all'Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo","main_title":{"title":"I commentari all'Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo"},"abstract":"Oggetto di questo volume sono i commentari all.Isagoge di Porfirio che furono redatti tra il V e il VII secolo d.C. da Ammonio, Elia, Davide, pseudo-Elia (tutti rappresentanti della Scuola di Alessandria) e Boezio (che riprese nel mondo latino la tradizione delle Scuole neoplatoniche ateniese e alessandrina). All'analisi della struttura generale dei commentari si accompagna lo studio e la contestualizzazione all'interno del complesso sviluppo della tradizione esegetica (che comprende tanto fattori di continuit\u00e0 quanto momenti di rottura) dei passi che, vertendo sui concetti logico-metafisici di genere, specie e individuo, esemplificano le diverse soluzioni al problema dell'armonizzazione tra aristotelismo e platonismo. [author's abstract]\r\nTranslation: The subject of this volume is the commentaries on Porphyry's Isagoge, which were written between the 5th and 7th centuries AD by Ammonius, Elias, David, pseudo-Elias (all representatives of the Alexandrian School), and Boethius (who brought the tradition of the Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonic Schools into the Latin world). Alongside the analysis of the general structure of the commentaries, the study also examines and contextualizes passages within the complex development of the exegetical tradition (which includes both factors of continuity and moments of rupture). These passages, focusing on the logical-metaphysical concepts of genus, species, and individual, illustrate various solutions to the problem of harmonizing Aristotelianism and Platonism.","btype":1,"date":"2010","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oU9mkubdz6V4nsQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":2,"full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1,"pubplace":"Roma","publisher":"Bonanno Editore","series":"Analecta Humanitatis","volume":"18","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2010]}

Nous and Two Kinds of Epistêmê in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, 2010
By: Zeev Perelmuter

Title	Nous and Two Kinds of Epistêmê in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	55
Issue	3
Pages	228-254
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zeev Perelmuter
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle in Physics I,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate “cognition according to the definition and through the elements,” and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is πιστήμη. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for πιστήμη and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to reconstruct Simplicius' reading of “Socrates' Dream,” its place in the Theaetetus ' larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IHkwn4udUD0QWHq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1593","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1593,"authors_free":[{"id":2793,"entry_id":1593,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zeev Perelmuter","free_first_name":"Zeev","free_last_name":"Perelmuter","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Nous and Two Kinds of Epist\u00eam\u00ea in Aristotle\u2019s Posterior Analytics","main_title":{"title":"Nous and Two Kinds of Epist\u00eam\u00ea in Aristotle\u2019s Posterior Analytics"},"abstract":"Aristotle in Physics I,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate \u201ccognition according to the definition and through the elements,\u201d and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to reconstruct Simplicius' reading of \u201cSocrates' Dream,\u201d its place in the Theaetetus ' larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract] ","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IHkwn4udUD0QWHq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1593,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis ","volume":"55","issue":"3","pages":"228-254"}},"sort":[2010]}

Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008, 2010
By: Janssens, Jules L.

Title	Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume	72
Issue	1
Pages	193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Janssens, Jules L.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius van Silicia (ong. 480-540 n.Chr.) is de laatste der antieke 'commentatoren'. Zijn oeuvre wordt vooral (om niet te zeggen haast uitsluitend) gewaardeerd als bron voor de kennis van vroegere Griekse denkers (van wie de werken niet zelden verloren gegaan zijn en enkel Simplicius getuigenis aflegt). Dit wekt de indruk dat Simplicius geen echt filosofisch project had. Op magistrale wijze toont Baltussen aan dat dit geenszins zo is. Het belang van Simplicius' commentaren overschrijdt ruim de functie van kennisgeving van het vroegere Griekse denken. Zij getuigen immers van een speciale exegetische en didactische werkwijze. Bovendien vertegenwoordigen zij een bijzondere fase in de interpretatie van Plato en Aristoteles. Ook vormen zij de overgang van de oudheid naar de middeleeuwen. Deze basiskenmerken worden grondig uitgewerkt in het boek. Een goed idee van de uitzonderlijke rijkdom aan geciteerde bronnen in Simplicius' diverse werken krijgt de lezer dankzij een overzichtstabel (p. 30). De vijf beginselen van Simplicius' exegetische methode (zoals door hemzelf verwoord in zijn commentaar op de Categorieën) worden nader toegelicht (met onder meer aandacht voor het kritisch vergelijken van handschriften en voor de diverse wijzen van citeren). In Simplicius' opvatting is de studie van Aristoteles duidelijk propedeutisch aan die van Plato (enkel deze laatste laat toe de goddelijke waarheid te bereiken). Tot slot verschijnt Simplicius als de laatste verwoorder van een heidense theologie; in die zin is zijn verwerping van Philoponus niet zozeer het resultaat van een polemische ingesteldheid, maar veeleer de uitdrukking van een godsdienstige motivatie. Van groot belang is ook dat Simplicius' werken losstaan van enige onderwijsopdracht en dat de synthese tussen de verschillende bronnen die hij opstelt, gevoerd wordt in propria voce, niet apo phonis. Deze grondideeën worden rijkelijk geïllustreerd via een overzicht van Simplicius' interpretatie van de Griekse filosofie vóór hem (hoofdstukken 2-5). Achtereenvolgens worden de presocratici, de peripatetici, Alexander van Afrodisias en de platonische commentatoren behandeld. Van de vele belangwekkende gedachten die Baltussen formuleert, vermeld ik graag de volgende: het Griekse denken wordt volgens Simplicius gekenmerkt door één grote eenheid (betekenisvol hiervoor is zijn karakterisering van de presocratici als platonici avant la lettre); Simplicius vertoont duidelijk syncretistische neigingen; Alexander van Afrodisias is een belangrijke externe stem voor het uitdiepen van het harmonisatieproces tussen Aristoteles' en Plato's denken, dat zo kenmerkend is voor het latere platonisme; filosoferen betekent voor Simplicius geen zoektocht naar originaliteit, maar het beantwoorden van teksten, waaraan een autoriteitswaarde werd toegekend; de mogelijkheid dat Simplicius rechtstreeks toegang had tot Plotinus' Enneaden, maar waarschijnlijk niet tot Syrianus' werk. Het lijdt geen twijfel dat Baltussen met zijn studie baanbrekend werk heeft geleverd. Hij toont op overtuigende wijze aan dat Simplicius meer was dan een 'archivaris'. Hij was daadwerkelijk een 'filosoof met een project'. De grote lijnen hiervan worden in dit boek meesterlijk uitgetekend. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYsHY65rt8Xj8n3

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1360","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1360,"authors_free":[{"id":2036,"entry_id":1360,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":205,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","free_first_name":"Jules L.","free_last_name":"Janssens","norm_person":{"id":205,"first_name":"Jules L.","last_name":"Janssens","full_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139312471","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008"},"abstract":"Simplicius van Silicia (ong. 480-540 n.Chr.) is de laatste der antieke 'commentatoren'. Zijn oeuvre wordt vooral (om niet te zeggen haast uitsluitend) gewaardeerd als bron voor de kennis van vroegere Griekse denkers (van wie de werken niet zelden verloren gegaan zijn en enkel Simplicius getuigenis aflegt). Dit wekt de indruk dat Simplicius geen echt filosofisch project had. Op magistrale wijze toont Baltussen aan dat dit geenszins zo is. Het belang van Simplicius' commentaren overschrijdt ruim de functie van kennisgeving van het vroegere Griekse denken. Zij getuigen immers van een speciale exegetische en didactische werkwijze. Bovendien vertegenwoordigen zij een bijzondere fase in de interpretatie van Plato en Aristoteles. Ook vormen zij de overgang van de oudheid naar de middeleeuwen.\r\n\r\nDeze basiskenmerken worden grondig uitgewerkt in het boek. Een goed idee van de uitzonderlijke rijkdom aan geciteerde bronnen in Simplicius' diverse werken krijgt de lezer dankzij een overzichtstabel (p. 30). De vijf beginselen van Simplicius' exegetische methode (zoals door hemzelf verwoord in zijn commentaar op de Categorie\u00ebn) worden nader toegelicht (met onder meer aandacht voor het kritisch vergelijken van handschriften en voor de diverse wijzen van citeren). In Simplicius' opvatting is de studie van Aristoteles duidelijk propedeutisch aan die van Plato (enkel deze laatste laat toe de goddelijke waarheid te bereiken). Tot slot verschijnt Simplicius als de laatste verwoorder van een heidense theologie; in die zin is zijn verwerping van Philoponus niet zozeer het resultaat van een polemische ingesteldheid, maar veeleer de uitdrukking van een godsdienstige motivatie. Van groot belang is ook dat Simplicius' werken losstaan van enige onderwijsopdracht en dat de synthese tussen de verschillende bronnen die hij opstelt, gevoerd wordt in propria voce, niet apo phonis.\r\n\r\nDeze grondidee\u00ebn worden rijkelijk ge\u00efllustreerd via een overzicht van Simplicius' interpretatie van de Griekse filosofie v\u00f3\u00f3r hem (hoofdstukken 2-5). Achtereenvolgens worden de presocratici, de peripatetici, Alexander van Afrodisias en de platonische commentatoren behandeld. Van de vele belangwekkende gedachten die Baltussen formuleert, vermeld ik graag de volgende: het Griekse denken wordt volgens Simplicius gekenmerkt door \u00e9\u00e9n grote eenheid (betekenisvol hiervoor is zijn karakterisering van de presocratici als platonici avant la lettre); Simplicius vertoont duidelijk syncretistische neigingen; Alexander van Afrodisias is een belangrijke externe stem voor het uitdiepen van het harmonisatieproces tussen Aristoteles' en Plato's denken, dat zo kenmerkend is voor het latere platonisme; filosoferen betekent voor Simplicius geen zoektocht naar originaliteit, maar het beantwoorden van teksten, waaraan een autoriteitswaarde werd toegekend; de mogelijkheid dat Simplicius rechtstreeks toegang had tot Plotinus' Enneaden, maar waarschijnlijk niet tot Syrianus' werk.\r\n\r\nHet lijdt geen twijfel dat Baltussen met zijn studie baanbrekend werk heeft geleverd. Hij toont op overtuigende wijze aan dat Simplicius meer was dan een 'archivaris'. Hij was daadwerkelijk een 'filosoof met een project'. De grote lijnen hiervan worden in dit boek meesterlijk uitgetekend.\r\n[the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xYsHY65rt8Xj8n3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":205,"full_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1360,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"72","issue":"1","pages":"193"}},"sort":[2010]}

Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul, 2010
By: de Haas, F. A. J., Gerson, Lloyd P. (Ed.)

Title	Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2010
Published in	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II
Pages	756–764
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	de Haas, F. A. J.
Editor(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Translator(s)

The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work "Solutiones ad Chosroem," translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the "Solutiones" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2VbXQkN5q9f6HeT

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1551","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1551,"authors_free":[{"id":2713,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, F. A. J.","free_first_name":"F. A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2714,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul"},"abstract":"The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work \"Solutiones ad Chosroem,\" translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the \"Solutiones\" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2VbXQkN5q9f6HeT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1551,"section_of":964,"pages":"756\u2013764 ","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2010]}

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume I, 2010
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

Title	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume I
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2010
Publication Place	Cambrige
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Volume	I
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200–800 ce. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (ed. A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of schol- arship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assess- ments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PBCTQTxz4lJBD2L

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1552,"authors_free":[{"id":2715,"entry_id":1552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume I","main_title":{"title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume I"},"abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially\r\ncommissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 ce.\r\nDesigned as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval\r\nPhilosophy (ed. A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of schol-\r\narship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy\r\nas it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assess-\r\nments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume\r\nalso includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been\r\nwritten during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested\r\nin this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PBCTQTxz4lJBD2L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1552,"pubplace":"Cambrige","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"I","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2010]}

Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I 8] 6, 33-34 : Le « De Iside et Osiride » (369 A-E) de Plutarque, 2009
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc, Narbonne, Jean-Marc (Ed.), Poirier, Paul-Hubert (Ed.)

Title	Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I 8] 6, 33-34 : Le « De Iside et Osiride » (369 A-E) de Plutarque
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2009
Published in	Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot
Pages	87-95
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Editor(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert
Translator(s)

Despite numerous studies conducted for a long time on Plotinus' treatise 51, the formula expressing the radical opposition of good and evil remains partly a mystery. Plotinus argues against Aristotle's idea that substances do not have opposites, and claims that universal substance can have a contrary, namely non-substance and the nature of evil. Plotinus' dualism allows for organized counterattacks while preserving the supremacy of good, with evil existing as an enclave within being, limited by the boundaries of good. The image of a prisoner acting but limited by the chains that surround him from the outside is used to illustrate this idea. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O9OqImqHCPz7w7D

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1105","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1105,"authors_free":[{"id":1668,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1669,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1670,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I\u00a08]\u00a06, 33-34 : Le \u00ab\u00a0De Iside et Osiride\u00a0\u00bb (369 A-E) de Plutarque","main_title":{"title":"Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I\u00a08]\u00a06, 33-34 : Le \u00ab\u00a0De Iside et Osiride\u00a0\u00bb (369 A-E) de Plutarque"},"abstract":"Despite numerous studies conducted for a long time on Plotinus' treatise 51, the formula expressing the radical opposition of good and evil remains partly a mystery. Plotinus argues against Aristotle's idea that substances do not have opposites, and claims that universal substance can have a contrary, namely non-substance and the nature of evil. Plotinus' dualism allows for organized counterattacks while preserving the supremacy of good, with evil existing as an enclave within being, limited by the boundaries of good. The image of a prisoner acting but limited by the chains that surround him from the outside is used to illustrate this idea. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O9OqImqHCPz7w7D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1105,"section_of":301,"pages":"87-95","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":301,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Narbonne2009c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"Un livre d\u2019historiens et de philosophes sp\u00e9cilalistes de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot, lui-m\u00eame philosophe fran\u00e7ais et historien de l'antiquit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9put\u00e9 et l'auteur d'une \u0153uvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesur\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme mani\u00e8re de vivre. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish), 2009
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc, Narbonne, Jean-Marc (Ed.), Poirier, Paul-Hubert (Ed.)

Title	Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2009
Published in	Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot
Pages	97-100
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Editor(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert
Translator(s)

This text is an addendum to the book Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8) p. 109. It explores Plotinus‘ concept of substance and non-substance, good and evil, and the principle of better and worse things. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ahDdnxIxJ6Y3VGD

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1106","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1106,"authors_free":[{"id":1671,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1672,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1673,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)","main_title":{"title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)"},"abstract":"This text is an addendum to the book Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8) p. 109. It explores Plotinus\u2018 concept of substance and non-substance, good and evil, and the principle of better and worse things. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ahDdnxIxJ6Y3VGD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1106,"section_of":301,"pages":"97-100","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":301,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Narbonne2009c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"Un livre d\u2019historiens et de philosophes sp\u00e9cilalistes de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot, lui-m\u00eame philosophe fran\u00e7ais et historien de l'antiquit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9put\u00e9 et l'auteur d'une \u0153uvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesur\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme mani\u00e8re de vivre. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change, 2009
By: Harari, Orna, Brad Inwood (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2009
Published in	Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Pages	245-274
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Harari, Orna
Editor(s)	Brad Inwood
Translator(s)

The ancient commentators’ approach to Aristotle’s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (διαφορά) or a character (χαρακτήρ) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (ἀπόνευσις). In this study, I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle’s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus’ Ennead 6.1.6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus’ construal of Aristotle’s category of relatives. In the opening paragraph of his discussion of relatives in Categories 7, Aristotle presents two lists of examples; the first contains greater and double, the second contains states, conditions, perception, knowledge, and position (6a38-b3). Although Aristotle does not explicitly distinguish these lists, they seem to exemplify two different notions of relatives. The first list seems to contain relational attributes whose bearers possess them merely due to their mutual dependence, whereas the second list seems to contain attributes which, in addition to arising from their bearers’ mutual dependence, are internal qualitative states thereof. Corresponding to this distinction, Plotinus in Ennead 6.1.9 distinguishes two types of relational attributes: those that come about by participation and those that result from an activity. In so doing, he associates Aristotle’s account of relatives with the question of the reality of relations, which does not appear in Categories 7 but arises from the Stoic notion of relatives. Consequently, Plotinus’ distinction of these types of relatives leads to two different accounts of the reality of relations. The first account, in which relational attributes are acquired by participation, secures the reality of relations by preventing their reduction to their substrates. By this account, relational attributes are not mere dispositions of their substrates, as the Stoics hold, but exist over and above their substrates. The second account, in which relational attributes are activities of their substrates, secures the reality of relations by grounding them in the inner nature of their substrates. It thereby confronts the contention found in Aristotle’s Metaphysics N 1 (1088u29-35) and in Sextus Empiricus (M. 8.455-8) that relational attributes are ontologically inferior because their substrates do not undergo an intrinsic change when they acquire and lose their relational attributes. Plotinus’ Ennead 6.1.6-9 leaves this dilemma unsettled. On the one hand, he considers active relations less problematic than relations by participation (6.1.6.13-18); on the other hand, he argues that the unity of the category of relatives is secured if relations are considered to be forms acquired by participation (6.1.9.25-7). How to distinguish relations from their relata without jeopardizing the subject-attribute scheme remains an open question. In substantiating my interpretation, I analyze in the first section Simplicius’ and the other late commentators’ discussions of the reality of relations. I show that Simplicius’ discussion gives rise to the formulation of a precise distinction between relations and their substrates, whereas the other late commentators stress the dependence of relations on their substrates. In the second section, I turn to Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic distinction between relatives and relatively disposed attributes, showing that, despite the distinction between relations and their substrates, Simplicius follows the other commentators in stressing the dependence of relational attributes on the inner nature of their substrates. In light of these conclusions, in the third section I seek to show how Simplicius succeeds in accommodating the distinction between relations and their substrates with his view that relations depend on their substrates. Here, I analyze Simplicius’ discussion of relational change and show that it facilitates the integration of these two accounts and that it underlies the notion of inclination. In conclusion, I show that Simplicius’ conception of relations originates in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and in Damascius’ account of the relation between the higher and lower grades of reality in Neoplatonic metaphysics. This discussion lends further support to my attempt to articulate the notion of inclination and offers a possible explanation of Simplicius’ motivation for deviating from the stance of the other late commentators. [introduction p. 245-248]

Online Resources

Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme, 2009
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Bonazzi, Mauro (Ed.), Opsomer, Jan (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1145","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1145,"authors_free":[{"id":1718,"entry_id":1145,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2804,"entry_id":1145,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brad Inwood","free_first_name":"Brad","free_last_name":"Inwood","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change"},"abstract":"The ancient commentators\u2019 approach to Aristotle\u2019s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac) or a character (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). In this study, I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus\u2019 Ennead 6.1.6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus\u2019 construal of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives.\r\n\r\nIn the opening paragraph of his discussion of relatives in Categories 7, Aristotle presents two lists of examples; the first contains greater and double, the second contains states, conditions, perception, knowledge, and position (6a38-b3). Although Aristotle does not explicitly distinguish these lists, they seem to exemplify two different notions of relatives. The first list seems to contain relational attributes whose bearers possess them merely due to their mutual dependence, whereas the second list seems to contain attributes which, in addition to arising from their bearers\u2019 mutual dependence, are internal qualitative states thereof.\r\n\r\nCorresponding to this distinction, Plotinus in Ennead 6.1.9 distinguishes two types of relational attributes: those that come about by participation and those that result from an activity. In so doing, he associates Aristotle\u2019s account of relatives with the question of the reality of relations, which does not appear in Categories 7 but arises from the Stoic notion of relatives. Consequently, Plotinus\u2019 distinction of these types of relatives leads to two different accounts of the reality of relations.\r\n\r\nThe first account, in which relational attributes are acquired by participation, secures the reality of relations by preventing their reduction to their substrates. By this account, relational attributes are not mere dispositions of their substrates, as the Stoics hold, but exist over and above their substrates. The second account, in which relational attributes are activities of their substrates, secures the reality of relations by grounding them in the inner nature of their substrates. It thereby confronts the contention found in Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics N 1 (1088u29-35) and in Sextus Empiricus (M. 8.455-8) that relational attributes are ontologically inferior because their substrates do not undergo an intrinsic change when they acquire and lose their relational attributes.\r\n\r\nPlotinus\u2019 Ennead 6.1.6-9 leaves this dilemma unsettled. On the one hand, he considers active relations less problematic than relations by participation (6.1.6.13-18); on the other hand, he argues that the unity of the category of relatives is secured if relations are considered to be forms acquired by participation (6.1.9.25-7).\r\n\r\nHow to distinguish relations from their relata without jeopardizing the subject-attribute scheme remains an open question. In substantiating my interpretation, I analyze in the first section Simplicius\u2019 and the other late commentators\u2019 discussions of the reality of relations. I show that Simplicius\u2019 discussion gives rise to the formulation of a precise distinction between relations and their substrates, whereas the other late commentators stress the dependence of relations on their substrates.\r\n\r\nIn the second section, I turn to Simplicius\u2019 criticism of the Stoic distinction between relatives and relatively disposed attributes, showing that, despite the distinction between relations and their substrates, Simplicius follows the other commentators in stressing the dependence of relational attributes on the inner nature of their substrates.\r\n\r\nIn light of these conclusions, in the third section I seek to show how Simplicius succeeds in accommodating the distinction between relations and their substrates with his view that relations depend on their substrates. Here, I analyze Simplicius\u2019 discussion of relational change and show that it facilitates the integration of these two accounts and that it underlies the notion of inclination.\r\n\r\nIn conclusion, I show that Simplicius\u2019 conception of relations originates in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Parmenides and in Damascius\u2019 account of the relation between the higher and lower grades of reality in Neoplatonic metaphysics. This discussion lends further support to my attempt to articulate the notion of inclination and offers a possible explanation of Simplicius\u2019 motivation for deviating from the stance of the other late commentators. [introduction p. 245-248]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1145,"section_of":1602,"pages":"245-274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1602,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Inwood2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"One of the leading series on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy presents outstanding new work in the field. The volumes feature original essays on a wide range of themes and problems in all periods of ancient philosophy, from its earliest beginnings to the threshold of the middle ages. It is anonymously peer-reviewed and appears twice a year.\r\n\r\nThe series was founded in 1983, and in 2016 published its 50th volume. The series format was chosen so that it might include essays of more substantial length than is customarily allowed in journals, as well as critical essays on books of distinctive importance. Past editors include Julia Annas, Christopher Taylor, David Sedley, Brad Inwood, and Victor Caston. The current editor, as of July 2022, is Rachana Kamtekar. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1602,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"XXXVII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1145,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"37","issue":"","pages":"245-274"}},"sort":[2009]}

Title	Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2009
Published in	The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts
Pages	89-111
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)	Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan
Translator(s)

Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels. C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque. Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote. Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ». Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme. Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel. Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C. S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher. [conclusion p. 107-108]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1269","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1269,"authors_free":[{"id":1860,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2041,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Mauro","free_last_name":"Bonazzi","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2042,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme","main_title":{"title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on se borne \u00e0 souligner qu\u2019Eudore a critiqu\u00e9 tel ou tel passage des Cat\u00e9gories, on oublie une donn\u00e9e fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des d\u00e9tails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu\u2019il en soit de ses caract\u00e8res formels) visait probablement \u00e0 rattacher les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments ponctuels.\r\n\r\nC\u2019est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n\u2019est pas absurde de supposer qu\u2019Eudore a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine des diff\u00e9rentes tentatives m\u00e9dio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les cat\u00e9gories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d\u2019une telle attitude, ce qui n\u2019exclut pas la pr\u00e9sence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.\r\n\r\nCette position est manifestement diff\u00e9rente de celle d\u2019Atticus, qui ne visait nullement \u00e0 annexer les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme. L\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019Eudore n\u2019est pas non plus identique \u00e0 celle du myst\u00e9rieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d\u2019objections extr\u00eamement pol\u00e9miques aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nEt l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Eudore n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec la discussion critique des cat\u00e9gories d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes \u00e0 la doctrine d\u2019Aristote comme une sorte de d\u00e9monstration dialectique des principes ontologiques \u00ab platoniciens \u00bb.\r\n\r\nIl y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et id\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eudore et celui qui, apr\u00e8s Plotin, sera d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent \u00e0 construire, de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrig\u00e9es d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 leur platonisme.\r\n\r\nMais les quelques fragments d\u2019Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper ce parall\u00e8le ; qui plus est, l\u2019int\u00e9gration tr\u00e8s complexe de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l\u2019\u0153uvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe si\u00e8cle, notamment Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a tr\u00e8s peu en commun avec Eudore et son arri\u00e8re-plan conceptuel.\r\n\r\nBref, si nous ne nous sommes pas \u00e9gar\u00e9s, il faut conclure que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9ception des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote dans le platonisme autour d\u2019Eudore est enti\u00e8rement redevable au contexte pr\u00e9cis de la p\u00e9riode qui s\u2019\u00e9tend entre le Ier si\u00e8cle avant et le Ier si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C.\r\n\r\nS\u2019il y a des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de continuit\u00e9 qui rattachent le platonisme de cette \u00e9poque au platonisme des si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n\u2019est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans l\u2019usage des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il faut les rechercher.\r\n[conclusion p. 107-108]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1269,"section_of":274,"pages":"89-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":274,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bonazzi\/Opsomer2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits, 2009
By: Eunyoung Ju, Anna

Title	The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	54
Issue	4/5
Pages	371-389
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Eunyoung Ju, Anna
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both as a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological taxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their discussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical, tending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept, as a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical Stoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This apparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no consensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers in detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the evidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on this topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained between the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so disagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were actually positions that might be called "standard" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In attempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain features of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late Stoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the school's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct, and, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the school's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last notion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be traced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking, namely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/H3kH3u3PbGnOPyE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"750","_score":null,"_source":{"id":750,"authors_free":[{"id":1115,"entry_id":750,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":83,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","norm_person":{"id":83,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits","main_title":{"title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits"},"abstract":"Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both \r\nas a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological \r\ntaxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their \r\ndiscussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical, \r\ntending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept, \r\nas a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical \r\nStoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This \r\napparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no \r\nconsensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers \r\nin detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the \r\nevidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on \r\nthis topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained \r\nbetween the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so \r\ndisagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were \r\nactually positions that might be called \"standard\" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In \r\nattempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain \r\nfeatures of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late \r\nStoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the \r\nschool's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct, \r\nand, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the \r\nschool's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last \r\nnotion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be \r\ntraced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking, \r\nnamely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H3kH3u3PbGnOPyE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":83,"full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":750,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"54","issue":"4\/5","pages":"371-389"}},"sort":[2009]}

Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority, 2009
By: Barney, Rachel

Title	Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Antiquorum Philosophia
Volume	3
Pages	101-119
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Barney, Rachel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

I have tried to make the case for two claims. First, we can do better than to speak of Simplicius as simply being committed to "the" Neoplatonic project of harmonizing Plato and Aristotle. Simplicius’ project is a very distinctive one, and, properly speaking, it is not to harmonize Plato and Aristotle. Nor, on the other hand, is it to harmonize the whole of pagan wisdom, or even the whole of Greek philosophy. Rather, it is to vindicate the unity of a certain dominant, broadly Platonic philosophical tradition, which importantly includes Aristotle, the Presocratics, and, to a lesser extent, the Stoics, in order to better defend that tradition against Christian attack. The scope, methods, and spirit of this project are all modeled on Aristotle’s own treatment of his predecessors, including an expansive but not unreasonable version of the principle of charity. Second, I have tried to bring out that projects of harmonization in philosophy have a perennial attraction for philosophers and interpreters alike, and not only for those who are antecedently committed to a canon of conflicting authorities. Projects of harmonization come in many guises and range across a spectrum from the primarily philosophical to the purely exegetical. Simplicius comes close to the latter extreme: his persona and methods are, in fact, strikingly close to those of a familiar sort of modern scholar, notwithstanding the strong philosophical commitments that inform his project. Finally, I would suggest that this self-appointed role as exegete is, more than anything else, an expression of Simplicius’ self-conscious belatedness. With a few exceptions, such as the residual puzzles about place and time addressed in the Corollaries, Simplicius’ work shows us what it is like to do philosophy after all the philosophical problems have been solved. All that remains open to him is the essentially interpretive work of showing how the correct solutions fit together. [conclusion p. 117-118]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bBLV4U0YGAzXs7u

{"_index":"sire","_id":"825","_score":null,"_source":{"id":825,"authors_free":[{"id":1226,"entry_id":825,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":418,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barney, Rachel","free_first_name":"Rachel","free_last_name":"Barney","norm_person":{"id":418,"first_name":"Rachel","last_name":"Barney","full_name":"Barney, Rachel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/17355959X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority"},"abstract":"I have tried to make the case for two claims. First, we can do better than to speak of Simplicius as simply being committed to \"the\" Neoplatonic project of harmonizing Plato and Aristotle. Simplicius\u2019 project is a very distinctive one, and, properly speaking, it is not to harmonize Plato and Aristotle. Nor, on the other hand, is it to harmonize the whole of pagan wisdom, or even the whole of Greek philosophy. Rather, it is to vindicate the unity of a certain dominant, broadly Platonic philosophical tradition, which importantly includes Aristotle, the Presocratics, and, to a lesser extent, the Stoics, in order to better defend that tradition against Christian attack. The scope, methods, and spirit of this project are all modeled on Aristotle\u2019s own treatment of his predecessors, including an expansive but not unreasonable version of the principle of charity.\r\n\r\nSecond, I have tried to bring out that projects of harmonization in philosophy have a perennial attraction for philosophers and interpreters alike, and not only for those who are antecedently committed to a canon of conflicting authorities. Projects of harmonization come in many guises and range across a spectrum from the primarily philosophical to the purely exegetical. Simplicius comes close to the latter extreme: his persona and methods are, in fact, strikingly close to those of a familiar sort of modern scholar, notwithstanding the strong philosophical commitments that inform his project. Finally, I would suggest that this self-appointed role as exegete is, more than anything else, an expression of Simplicius\u2019 self-conscious belatedness. With a few exceptions, such as the residual puzzles about place and time addressed in the Corollaries, Simplicius\u2019 work shows us what it is like to do philosophy after all the philosophical problems have been solved. All that remains open to him is the essentially interpretive work of showing how the correct solutions fit together. [conclusion p. 117-118]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bBLV4U0YGAzXs7u","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":418,"full_name":"Barney, Rachel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":825,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophia","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"101-119"}},"sort":[2009]}

Plotin und Simplikios über die Kategorie des Wo, 2009
By: Strobel, Benedikt

Title	Plotin und Simplikios über die Kategorie des Wo
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2009
Journal	Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
Volume	51
Pages	7-33
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Wir haben im vorhergehenden drei semantische Interpretationen von Lokativen – als Ortsbezeichnungen, als Bezeichnungen von einem in einem anderen und als Ausdrücke von Relationen – kennengelernt, mit denen Plotin in VI 1 [42] 14 gegen die aristotelische Annahme der Kategorie des Wo (πού) argumentiert und die drei verschiedene Bestimmungen des Wo einschließen: als Ort (τόπος), als eines in einem anderen (ἄλλο ἐν ἄλλῳ) und als Beziehung zu einem Ort (σχέσις πρὸς τόπον). Dabei hat sich unter anderem gezeigt: (i) Weder diese Interpretationen noch die auf ihnen beruhenden Argumente überzeugen völlig, und Simplikios' Verteidigung der aristotelischen Annahme der Kategorie des Wo ist weitgehend erfolgreich, weist jedoch mit der These, dass Lokative nicht-reziproke Relationen ausdrücken, eine Schwachstelle auf. (ii) Plotins drittes, auf der Interpretation von Lokativen als Ausdrücke von Relationen beruhendes Argument überzeugt zwar letztlich nicht, weist jedoch auf ein ernsthaftes Problem für Aristoteles hin. (iii) Die in der antiken Philosophie weitverbreitete Auffassung, an einem Ort zu sein bedeute, von einem Körper umfasst zu werden, gründet in einem bestimmten Verständnis von Lokativen der Form ἐν τινι (z. B. ἐν Λύκειον und ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ). Dies bestätigt die zu Beginn aufgestellte These, dass die semantische Analyse von Lokativen Konsequenzen hat für die Wahl der Antwort darauf, was es heißt, an einem Ort zu sein, und was es heißt, der Ort von etwas zu sein. [introduction p. 30-31]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aD2ORfI4GVXZhsH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"844","_score":null,"_source":{"id":844,"authors_free":[{"id":1248,"entry_id":844,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo","main_title":{"title":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo"},"abstract":"Wir haben im vorhergehenden drei semantische Interpretationen von Lokativen \u2013 als Ortsbezeichnungen, als Bezeichnungen von einem in einem anderen und als Ausdr\u00fccke von Relationen \u2013 kennengelernt, mit denen Plotin in VI 1 [42] 14 gegen die aristotelische Annahme der Kategorie des Wo (\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd) argumentiert und die drei verschiedene Bestimmungen des Wo einschlie\u00dfen: als Ort (\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2), als eines in einem anderen (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3) und als Beziehung zu einem Ort (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd).\r\n\r\nDabei hat sich unter anderem gezeigt:\r\n(i) Weder diese Interpretationen noch die auf ihnen beruhenden Argumente \u00fcberzeugen v\u00f6llig, und Simplikios' Verteidigung der aristotelischen Annahme der Kategorie des Wo ist weitgehend erfolgreich, weist jedoch mit der These, dass Lokative nicht-reziproke Relationen ausdr\u00fccken, eine Schwachstelle auf.\r\n(ii) Plotins drittes, auf der Interpretation von Lokativen als Ausdr\u00fccke von Relationen beruhendes Argument \u00fcberzeugt zwar letztlich nicht, weist jedoch auf ein ernsthaftes Problem f\u00fcr Aristoteles hin.\r\n(iii) Die in der antiken Philosophie weitverbreitete Auffassung, an einem Ort zu sein bedeute, von einem K\u00f6rper umfasst zu werden, gr\u00fcndet in einem bestimmten Verst\u00e4ndnis von Lokativen der Form \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 (z. B. \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd und \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u1fb3). Dies best\u00e4tigt die zu Beginn aufgestellte These, dass die semantische Analyse von Lokativen Konsequenzen hat f\u00fcr die Wahl der Antwort darauf, was es hei\u00dft, an einem Ort zu sein, und was es hei\u00dft, der Ort von etwas zu sein.\r\n[introduction p. 30-31]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aD2ORfI4GVXZhsH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":844,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"51","issue":"","pages":"7-33"}},"sort":[2009]}

The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts, 2009
By: Bonazzi, Mauro (Ed.), Opsomer, Jan (Ed.)

Title	The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2009
Publication Place	Louvain – Namur – Paris – Walpole, MA
Publisher	Éditions Peeters. Société des études classique
Series	Collection d'Études Classiques
Volume	23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan
Translator(s)

From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX

{"_index":"sire","_id":"274","_score":null,"_source":{"id":274,"authors_free":[{"id":2043,"entry_id":274,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Bonazzi","free_last_name":"Mauro","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2044,"entry_id":274,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","main_title":{"title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts"},"abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","btype":4,"date":"2009","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot, 2009
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc (Ed.), Poirier, Paul-Hubert (Ed.)

Title	Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2009
Publication Place	Paris - Québec
Publisher	Vrin - Les Presses de l'Université Laval
Series	Collection Zêtêsis: Série «Textes et essais»
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert
Translator(s)

Un livre d’historiens et de philosophes spécilalistes de l’antiquité en hommage à Pierre Hadot, lui-même philosophe français et historien de l'antiquité très réputé et l'auteur d'une œuvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesurée, développée notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme manière de vivre. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx

{"_index":"sire","_id":"301","_score":null,"_source":{"id":301,"authors_free":[{"id":375,"entry_id":301,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":376,"entry_id":301,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","main_title":{"title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot"},"abstract":"Un livre d\u2019historiens et de philosophes sp\u00e9cilalistes de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot, lui-m\u00eame philosophe fran\u00e7ais et historien de l'antiquit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9put\u00e9 et l'auteur d'une \u0153uvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesur\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme mani\u00e8re de vivre. [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2009","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle's De anima, 2009
By: Destrée, Pierre (Ed.), Van Riel, Gerd (Ed.), Crawford, Cyril K. (Ed.), Van Campe, Leen (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle's De anima
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy
Volume	I 41
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Destrée, Pierre , Van Riel, Gerd , Crawford, Cyril K. , Van Campe, Leen
Translator(s)

Aristotle's treatise "On the Soul" figures among the most influential texts in the intellectual history of the West. It is the first systematic treatise on the nature and functioning of the human soul, presenting Aristotle's authoritative analyses of, among others, sense perception, imagination, memory, and intellect. The ongoing debates on this difficult work continue the commentary tradition that dates back to antiquity. This volume offers a selection of papers by distinguished scholars, exploring the ancient perspectives on Aristotle's "De anima", from Aristotle's earliest successors through the Aristotelian Commentators at the end of Antiquity. It constitutes a twin publication with a volume entitled "Medieval Perspectives on Aristotle's "De anima"" [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1vWVivBFKYUW50b

{"_index":"sire","_id":"88","_score":null,"_source":{"id":88,"authors_free":[{"id":100,"entry_id":88,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":101,"entry_id":88,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2528,"entry_id":88,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":536,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Crawford, Cyril K. ","free_first_name":"Cyril K. ","free_last_name":"Crawford","norm_person":{"id":536,"first_name":"Cyril K. ","last_name":"Crawford","full_name":"Crawford, Cyril K. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2529,"entry_id":88,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":535,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Campe, Leen ","free_first_name":"Leen","free_last_name":"Van Campe","norm_person":{"id":535,"first_name":"Leen","last_name":"Van Campe","full_name":"Van Campe, Leen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle's De anima","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle's De anima"},"abstract":"Aristotle's treatise \"On the Soul\" figures among the most influential texts in the intellectual history of the West. It is the first systematic treatise on the nature and functioning of the human soul, presenting Aristotle's authoritative analyses of, among others, sense perception, imagination, memory, and intellect. The ongoing debates on this difficult work continue the commentary tradition that dates back to antiquity. This volume offers a selection of papers by distinguished scholars, exploring the ancient perspectives on Aristotle's \"De anima\", from Aristotle's earliest successors through the Aristotelian Commentators at the end of Antiquity. It constitutes a twin publication with a volume entitled \"Medieval Perspectives on Aristotle's \"De anima\"\" [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1vWVivBFKYUW50b","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":536,"full_name":"Crawford, Cyril K. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":535,"full_name":"Van Campe, Leen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":88,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy","volume":"I 41","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.7-4.6’, 2009
By: Simplicius , Mueller, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.7-4.6’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Commenting on the end of Aristotle's On the Heavens Book 3, Simplicius examines Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's theory of elemental chemistry in the Timaeus. Plato makes the characteristics of the four elements depend on the shapes of component corpuscles and ultimately on the arrangement of the triangles which compose them. Simplicius preserves and criticizes the contributions made to the debate in lost works by two other major commentators, Alexander the Aristotelian, and Proclus the Platonist. In Book 4, Simplicius identifies fifteen objections by Aristotle to Plato's views on weight in the four elements. He finishes Book 4 by elaborating Aristotle's criticisms of Democritus' theory of weight in the atoms, including Democritus' suggestions about the influence of atomic shape on certain atomic motions. This volume includes an English translation of Simplicius' commentary, a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9DVMcEiwlRjT1eG

{"_index":"sire","_id":"98","_score":null,"_source":{"id":98,"authors_free":[{"id":115,"entry_id":98,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2277,"entry_id":98,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2278,"entry_id":98,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 3.7-4.6\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 3.7-4.6\u2019"},"abstract":"Commenting on the end of Aristotle's On the Heavens Book 3, Simplicius examines Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's theory of elemental chemistry in the Timaeus. Plato makes the characteristics of the four elements depend on the shapes of component corpuscles and ultimately on the arrangement of the triangles which compose them. Simplicius preserves and criticizes the contributions made to the debate in lost works by two other major commentators, Alexander the Aristotelian, and Proclus the Platonist.\r\n\r\nIn Book 4, Simplicius identifies fifteen objections by Aristotle to Plato's views on weight in the four elements. He finishes Book 4 by elaborating Aristotle's criticisms of Democritus' theory of weight in the atoms, including Democritus' suggestions about the influence of atomic shape on certain atomic motions.\r\n\r\nThis volume includes an English translation of Simplicius' commentary, a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography.\r\n","btype":1,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9DVMcEiwlRjT1eG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":98,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.1-7’, 2009
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.1-7’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

The subject of Aristotle's On the Heavens, Books 3-4, is the four elements of earth, air, fire and water, which exist below the heavens. Book 3, in chapters 1 to 7, frequently criticizes the Presocratic philosophers. Because of this, Simplicius' commentary is one of our main sources of quotations of the Presocratics. Ian Mueller's translation of this commentary gains added importance by enabling us to see the context which guided Simplicius' selection of Presocratic texts to quote. Simplicius also criticizes the lost commentary of the leading Aristotelian commentator, Alexander, and thereby gives us important information about that work. The English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Tp4gKVaseyADwcc

{"_index":"sire","_id":"99","_score":null,"_source":{"id":99,"authors_free":[{"id":116,"entry_id":99,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2279,"entry_id":99,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2280,"entry_id":99,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 3.1-7\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 3.1-7\u2019"},"abstract":"The subject of Aristotle's On the Heavens, Books 3-4, is the four elements of earth, air, fire and water, which exist below the heavens. Book 3, in chapters 1 to 7, frequently criticizes the Presocratic philosophers. Because of this, Simplicius' commentary is one of our main sources of quotations of the Presocratics. Ian Mueller's translation of this commentary gains added importance by enabling us to see the context which guided Simplicius' selection of Presocratic texts to quote. Simplicius also criticizes the lost commentary of the leading Aristotelian commentator, Alexander, and thereby gives us important information about that work. The English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [official abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Tp4gKVaseyADwcc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":99,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities, 2009
By: Côté, Antoine

Title	Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Vivarium
Volume	47
Issue	1
Pages	24-53
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Côté, Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The paper examines Simplicius's doctrine of propensities (epitedeioteis ) in his commen- tary on Aristotles Categories and follows its application by the late thirteenth century theologian and philosopher James of Viterbo to problems relating to the causes of volition, intellection and natural change. Although he uses Aristotelian terminology and means his doctrine to conflict minimally with those of Aristode, James s doctrine of propensities really constitutes an attempt to provide a technically rigorous dressing to his Augustinián and Boethian convictions. Central to Jamess procedure is his rejection, following Henry of Ghent, of the principle that "everything that is moved is moved by another". James uses Simplicius' doctrine of propensities as a means of extending the rejection of that principle, which Henry had limited to the case of the will, to cognitive operations and natural change. The result is a theory of cognition and volition that sees the soul as the principal cause of its own acts, and a theory of natural change that minimizes the causal impact of external agents. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/B1zH6E24s1mChA1

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1282","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1282,"authors_free":[{"id":1871,"entry_id":1282,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":56,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9, Antoine","free_first_name":"Antoine","free_last_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":56,"first_name":"Antoine","last_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9","full_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9, Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137198221","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities"},"abstract":"The paper examines Simplicius's doctrine of propensities (epitedeioteis ) in his commen- \r\ntary on Aristotles Categories and follows its application by the late thirteenth century theologian and philosopher James of Viterbo to problems relating to the causes of \r\nvolition, intellection and natural change. Although he uses Aristotelian terminology and means his doctrine to conflict minimally with those of Aristode, James s doctrine of propensities really constitutes an attempt to provide a technically rigorous dressing to his Augustini\u00e1n and Boethian convictions. Central to Jamess procedure is his rejection, following Henry of Ghent, of the principle that \"everything that is moved is moved by another\". James uses Simplicius' doctrine of propensities as a means of extending the rejection of that principle, which Henry had limited to the case of the will, to cognitive operations and natural change. The result is a theory of cognition and volition that sees the soul as the principal cause of its own acts, and a theory of natural change that minimizes the causal impact of external agents. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B1zH6E24s1mChA1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":56,"full_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9, Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1282,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"47","issue":"1","pages":"24-53"}},"sort":[2009]}

Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2009
By: Dillon, John

Title	Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	3
Issue	2
Pages	158 –160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Dillon, John
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics—such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself. The book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a "work in progress," but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an "objective" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system. Ch. 1, ‘The Scholar and his Books’, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius’ life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries—necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries. For one salient aspect of Simplicius’ work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor. Ch. 2, ‘Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom’, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors—in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least—but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius’ own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction. Ch. 3, ‘Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics’, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle’s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one’s elbow, as one generally does not—in this case, chiefly Simplicius’ vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle’s doctrine. Ch. 4, ‘Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias’, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius’ chief authority—quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply "the commentator," and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition. Ch. 5, ‘Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration’, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the "harmonising" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well. Lastly, in Ch. 6, ‘Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology’, he deals with Simplicius’ fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term "pagan"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students. An Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius’ library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School. At any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt

{"_index":"sire","_id":"601","_score":null,"_source":{"id":601,"authors_free":[{"id":852,"entry_id":601,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics\u2014such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself.\r\n\r\nThe book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a \"work in progress,\" but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an \"objective\" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system.\r\n\r\nCh. 1, \u2018The Scholar and his Books\u2019, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius\u2019 life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries\u2014necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries.\r\n\r\nFor one salient aspect of Simplicius\u2019 work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor.\r\n\r\nCh. 2, \u2018Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom\u2019, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors\u2014in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least\u2014but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius\u2019 own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction.\r\n\r\nCh. 3, \u2018Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics\u2019, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle\u2019s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one\u2019s elbow, as one generally does not\u2014in this case, chiefly Simplicius\u2019 vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine.\r\n\r\nCh. 4, \u2018Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius\u2019 chief authority\u2014quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply \"the commentator,\" and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition.\r\n\r\nCh. 5, \u2018Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration\u2019, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the \"harmonising\" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well.\r\n\r\nLastly, in Ch. 6, \u2018Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology\u2019, he deals with Simplicius\u2019 fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term \"pagan\"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students.\r\n\r\nAn Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius\u2019 library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School.\r\n\r\nAt any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":601,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"3","issue":"2","pages":"158 \u2013160"}},"sort":[2009]}

Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 2009
By: Brad Inwood (Ed.)

Title	Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Volume	XXXVII
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Brad Inwood
Translator(s)

One of the leading series on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy presents outstanding new work in the field. The volumes feature original essays on a wide range of themes and problems in all periods of ancient philosophy, from its earliest beginnings to the threshold of the middle ages. It is anonymously peer-reviewed and appears twice a year. The series was founded in 1983, and in 2016 published its 50th volume. The series format was chosen so that it might include essays of more substantial length than is customarily allowed in journals, as well as critical essays on books of distinctive importance. Past editors include Julia Annas, Christopher Taylor, David Sedley, Brad Inwood, and Victor Caston. The current editor, as of July 2022, is Rachana Kamtekar. [official abstract]

Online Resources

The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle, 2009
By: Tuominen, Miira

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1602","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1602,"authors_free":[{"id":2805,"entry_id":1602,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brad Inwood","free_first_name":"Brad","free_last_name":"Inwood","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"One of the leading series on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy presents outstanding new work in the field. The volumes feature original essays on a wide range of themes and problems in all periods of ancient philosophy, from its earliest beginnings to the threshold of the middle ages. It is anonymously peer-reviewed and appears twice a year.\r\n\r\nThe series was founded in 1983, and in 2016 published its 50th volume. The series format was chosen so that it might include essays of more substantial length than is customarily allowed in journals, as well as critical essays on books of distinctive importance. Past editors include Julia Annas, Christopher Taylor, David Sedley, Brad Inwood, and Victor Caston. The current editor, as of July 2022, is Rachana Kamtekar. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1602,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"XXXVII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Title	The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	Berkley
Publisher	University of California Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tuominen, Miira
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The study of the ancient commentators has developed considerably over the past few decades, fueled by recent translations of their often daunting writings. This book offers the only concise, accessible general introduction currently available to the writings of the late ancient commentators on Aristotle and, to a lesser extent, Plato. Miira Tuominen provides a historical overview followed by a series of thematic chapters on epistemology, science and logic, physics, psychology, metaphysics, and ethics. In particular, she focuses on the writings of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Porphyry, Proclus, Philoponus, and Simplicius. Until recently, the late ancient commentators have been understood mainly as sources of information concerning the masters upon whose works they comment. This book offers new insights into their way of doing philosophy in their own right. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vWARKgjVH1fGgSq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1439","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1439,"authors_free":[{"id":2289,"entry_id":1439,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":434,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tuominen, Miira","free_first_name":"Miira","free_last_name":"Tuominen","norm_person":{"id":434,"first_name":"Miira","last_name":"Tuominen","full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle"},"abstract":"The study of the ancient commentators has developed considerably over the past few decades, fueled by recent translations of their often daunting writings. This book offers the only concise, accessible general introduction currently available to the writings of the late ancient commentators on Aristotle and, to a lesser extent, Plato. Miira Tuominen provides a historical overview followed by a series of thematic chapters on epistemology, science and logic, physics, psychology, metaphysics, and ethics. In particular, she focuses on the writings of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Porphyry, Proclus, Philoponus, and Simplicius. Until recently, the late ancient commentators have been understood mainly as sources of information concerning the masters upon whose works they comment. This book offers new insights into their way of doing philosophy in their own right. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vWARKgjVH1fGgSq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":434,"full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1439,"pubplace":"Berkley","publisher":"University of California Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities, 2009
By: Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Pender, Elizabeth E. (Ed.), Todd, Robert B., Bowen, Alan C.

Title	Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2009
Published in	Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion
Pages	155-183
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Todd, Robert B. , Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E.
Translator(s)

This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides’ most celebrated legacy—the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides’ special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.) The passages translated here (T1–6) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant “fragments” of modern editions (65C, 66–69, and 71 in volume XIV = 104–108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein’s and Kidd’s edition of Posidonius’ fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by //...// ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions. To be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity’s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study. Information on this theory of the Earth’s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412–485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490–560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it. Even the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius’ citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo (T4–6), and one in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position. In what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy’s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato’s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8–C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides’ theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth. Finally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5–6) appended to discussions of Aristotle’s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo. In an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides’ theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges—first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)—is a methodological rationale for Heraclides’ theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, “to save the phenomena.” Yet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides’ theory of the Earth’s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides’ theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations. So, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides’ theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways. [conclusion p. 155-158]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2YB813ju2mFR0oM

Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion, 2009
By: Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Pender, Elizabeth E. (Ed.)

Title	Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	London - New York
Publisher	Routledge
Series	Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume	15
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E.
Translator(s)

Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/M1J1UpbWT682j4V

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1501","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1501,"authors_free":[{"id":2603,"entry_id":1501,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2605,"entry_id":1501,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":558,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","free_first_name":"Elizabeth E.","free_last_name":"Pender","norm_person":{"id":558,"first_name":"Elizabeth E.","last_name":"Pender","full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122513010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion"},"abstract":"Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M1J1UpbWT682j4V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":558,"full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1501,"pubplace":"London - New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}

Defending Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Age of the Counter-Reformation: Iacopo Zabarella on the Mortality of the Soul according to Aristotle, 2009
By: Branko Mitrovic

Title	Defending Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Age of the Counter-Reformation: Iacopo Zabarella on the Mortality of the Soul according to Aristotle
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie
Volume	91
Issue	3
Pages	330-354
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Branko Mitrovic
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The work of the Paduan Aristotelian philosopher Iacopo Zabarella (1533– 1589) has attracted the attention of historians of philosophy mainly for his contributions to logic, scientific methodology and because of his possible influence on Galileo. At the same time, Zabarella’s views on Aristotelian psychology have been little studied so far; even those historians of Renaissance philosophy who have discussed them, have based their analysis mainly on the psychological essays included in Zabarella’s De rebus naturalibus, but have avoided Zabarella’s commentary on Aristotle’s De anima. This has led to an inaccurate, but widespread, understanding of Zabarella’s views. The intention of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of Zabarella’s arguments about the (im)mortality of the soul in the context of Aristotelian psychology. Zabarella’s view that the soul is mortal according to Aristotle is remarkable for his time, while his elaboration of this position is far more comprehensive than that of Pietro Pomponazzi, the other significant Renaissance thinker who shared the same view. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yApKXKo5NhAKVkF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1544","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1544,"authors_free":[{"id":2698,"entry_id":1544,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Branko Mitrovic","free_first_name":"Branko","free_last_name":"Mitrovic","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Defending Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Age of the Counter-Reformation: Iacopo Zabarella on the Mortality of the Soul according to Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Defending Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Age of the Counter-Reformation: Iacopo Zabarella on the Mortality of the Soul according to Aristotle"},"abstract":"The work of the Paduan Aristotelian philosopher Iacopo Zabarella (1533\u2013\r\n1589) has attracted the attention of historians of philosophy mainly for his contributions to logic, scientific methodology and because of his possible influence on Galileo.\r\nAt the same time, Zabarella\u2019s views on Aristotelian psychology have been little studied so far; even those historians of Renaissance philosophy who have discussed them, have based their analysis mainly on the psychological essays included in Zabarella\u2019s De rebus naturalibus, but have avoided Zabarella\u2019s commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De anima. This has led to an inaccurate, but widespread, understanding of Zabarella\u2019s views. The intention of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of Zabarella\u2019s arguments about the (im)mortality of the soul in the context of Aristotelian psychology. Zabarella\u2019s view that the soul is mortal according to Aristotle is remarkable for his time, while his elaboration of this position is far more comprehensive than that of Pietro Pomponazzi, the other significant Renaissance thinker who shared the same view. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yApKXKo5NhAKVkF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1544,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"91","issue":"3","pages":"330-354"}},"sort":[2009]}

Diogenes revisited, 2008
By: Laks, André

Title	Diogenes revisited
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in
Pages	281-290
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In the first edition of this book (1983), I made an attempt to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least after Diels’ devastating 1881 article, in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diels showed, particularly through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds, that Diogenes was quite popular in the last third of the 5th century (a popularity that has been confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus). His popularity, however, was in Diels’ view a confirmation of the unserious quality of Diogenes’ thinking (are not serious thinkers always ignored by the vulgar?). Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant—some publishing companies obviously think that the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham (2006) has made Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real initiator of the doctrine of “Material Monism” (chap. 10). I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution on this point is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism for an Anaximenean pluralism, which is Graham’s paradoxical point (see above, p. 70). In what follows, I just want to restate briefly what seem to me to be the two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology. The second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 281-282]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q5b1PHFAeBZnhpa

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1186","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1186,"authors_free":[{"id":1758,"entry_id":1186,"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}}],"entry_title":"Diogenes revisited","main_title":{"title":"Diogenes revisited"},"abstract":"In the first edition of this book (1983), I made an attempt to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least after Diels\u2019 devastating 1881 article, in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diels showed, particularly through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds, that Diogenes was quite popular in the last third of the 5th century (a popularity that has been confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus). His popularity, however, was in Diels\u2019 view a confirmation of the unserious quality of Diogenes\u2019 thinking (are not serious thinkers always ignored by the vulgar?).\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant\u2014some publishing companies obviously think that the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised.\r\n\r\nIt is all the more noteworthy that Graham (2006) has made Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real initiator of the doctrine of \u201cMaterial Monism\u201d (chap. 10). I personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution on this point is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism for an Anaximenean pluralism, which is Graham\u2019s paradoxical point (see above, p. 70).\r\n\r\nIn what follows, I just want to restate briefly what seem to me to be the two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology. The second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 281-282]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q5b1PHFAeBZnhpa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1186,"section_of":351,"pages":"281-290","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Pour une histoire de l’interprétation de Diogène, 2008
By: Laks, André

Title	Pour une histoire de l’interprétation de Diogène
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2008
Published in
Pages	21-36
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as "the last of the physicists," there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that "intellection" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uMTvuWxbtSS0NTk

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1189","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1189,"authors_free":[{"id":1761,"entry_id":1189,"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}}],"entry_title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne","main_title":{"title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne"},"abstract":"This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as \"the last of the physicists,\" there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that \"intellection\" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uMTvuWxbtSS0NTk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1189,"section_of":351,"pages":"21-36","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Les fragments, 2008
By: Laks, André

Title	Les fragments
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2008
Published in
Pages	62-71, 118-125, 132-159, 198-201
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

A commentary of Fragments in Simplicius: Fragment 4 (B2 FK); Fragment 5 (B7 DK); T3 a and b (A7 and 13A4 DK); T4 (A5 DK); T8 (A19 DK); T23a, b, c, and d (A10 and 13A11 DK); T24 (A10 DK)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Du6NCbF1wmtuJiM

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1192","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1192,"authors_free":[{"id":1763,"entry_id":1192,"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}}],"entry_title":"Les fragments","main_title":{"title":"Les fragments"},"abstract":"A commentary of Fragments in Simplicius: Fragment 4 (B2 FK); Fragment 5 (B7 DK); T3 a and b (A7 and 13A4 DK); T4 (A5 DK); T8 (A19 DK); T23a, b, c, and d (A10 and 13A11 DK); T24 (A10 DK) ","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Du6NCbF1wmtuJiM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1192,"section_of":351,"pages":"62-71, 118-125, 132-159, 198-201","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?, 2008
By: Chase, Michael

Title	Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2008
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Faisons donc le bilan de ce parcours qui nous a menés du IVe siècle av. J.-C. au Moyen Âge latin. L'argumentation présentée par Albert dans son De quinque universalibus provient d'une ambiance intellectuelle qui baignait dans des influences de la philosophie arabe : al-Fārābī, al-Ghazālī, Averroès, mais surtout Avicenne. Elle est marquée par l'utilisation du schéma de la dérivation des formes géométriques élémentaires — point, ligne, surface, corps — à partir du mouvement en flux générateur de chacun de ces éléments. Or, ce schéma de dérivation géométrique joue un rôle assez important dans la pensée d'Albert, qui l'attribue à Platon. Cette attribution ne semble pas si farfelue que cela, même si la dérivation des formes géométriques à partir du flux du point semble provenir de Speusippe plutôt que de son oncle Platon. Il n'en reste pas moins que, du moins selon l'interprétation de l'École de Tübingen, le schéma de dérivation point/nombre-ligne-surface-corps est d'une importance tout à fait fondamentale pour l'ontologie ésotérique de Platon. Sans accès aux Dialogues de Platon, Albert le Grand finit donc, quelles qu'aient été ses sources prochaines et lointaines pour les doctrines platoniciennes, par défendre une image de Platon qui correspond, dans une large mesure, à celle de l'École de Tübingen. Quant à la question de ses sources et de la voie de transmission de ces doctrines, Albert a pu trouver chez la plus importante d'entre elles — la pensée d'Avicenne — de quoi nourrir une réflexion approfondie sur cette question de la dérivation des formes géométriques. Cependant, le commentaire d'Albert aux Éléments d'Euclide montre qu'à cette influence avicennienne est venue s'ajouter une autre, indépendante : la doctrine géométrique de Simplicius, véhiculée par la traduction latine du commentaire euclidien d'al-Nairīzī. Qu'en est-il de la relation entre Simplicius et Avicenne ? Nous avons vu que certains éléments du schéma simplicien de la dérivation des formes géométriques se retrouvent déjà dans l'École de Bagdad, autour de Yaḥyā ibn ‘Adī. G. Freudenthal, pour sa part, avait conclu de son étude de la géométrie d'al-Fārābī qu'« il est fort probable qu'al-Fārābī connaissait soit les ouvrages de Simplicius auxquels an-Nairīzī avait accès, soit seulement la brève citation [p. 2, 19-23 Curze] contenue dans le commentaire d'an-Nairīzī ». Quoi qu'il en soit, il semble difficile d'éviter la conclusion qu'Avicenne connaissait bien la doctrine géométrique de Simplicius, du moins telle que transmise par le commentaire d'al-Nairīzī, soit par l'intermédiaire de l'École de Bagdad, soit par ses lectures propres. De Platon à Speusippe, en passant par des sources hellénistiques telles que Sextus Empiricus, la doctrine de la dérivation des formes géométriques a fini, au VIe siècle apr. J.-C., par faire partie intégrante du bagage intellectuel des derniers néoplatoniciens tels que Philopon et Simplicius. C'est, semble-t-il, la pensée géométrique de ce dernier qui, traduite en arabe et préservée dans le commentaire euclidien d'al-Nairīzī, contribue à former la pensée d'Avicenne au premier quart du XIe siècle, avant d'arriver, quelque deux siècles plus tard, sous les yeux de ce lecteur omnivore qu'était Albert le Grand. Pour expliquer cet itinéraire de la pensée, il n'est sans doute pas nécessaire de postuler que, comme le soutient Mme Hadot, Simplicius ait rédigé son Commentaire d'Euclide à Harran. Mais rien n'exclut cette hypothèse non plus, et quand on pense aux éléments de preuve rassemblés par Mme Hadot et d'autres concernant l'importance du legs de l'École mathématique de Simplicius dans le monde arabe, on peut estimer que le cas du schéma de la dérivation des formes géométriques à partir du point ne fait qu'ajouter une brique de plus à l'édifice des preuves témoignant en faveur de l'hypothèse de l'« École néoplatonicienne de Harran ». [conclusion p. 28-29]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mVjTC4EIjO2Aggg

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1259,"authors_free":[{"id":1838,"entry_id":1259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?","main_title":{"title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?"},"abstract":"Faisons donc le bilan de ce parcours qui nous a men\u00e9s du IVe si\u00e8cle av. J.-C. au Moyen \u00c2ge latin. L'argumentation pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par Albert dans son De quinque universalibus provient d'une ambiance intellectuelle qui baignait dans des influences de la philosophie arabe : al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b, Averro\u00e8s, mais surtout Avicenne. Elle est marqu\u00e9e par l'utilisation du sch\u00e9ma de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires \u2014 point, ligne, surface, corps \u2014 \u00e0 partir du mouvement en flux g\u00e9n\u00e9rateur de chacun de ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments.\r\n\r\nOr, ce sch\u00e9ma de d\u00e9rivation g\u00e9om\u00e9trique joue un r\u00f4le assez important dans la pens\u00e9e d'Albert, qui l'attribue \u00e0 Platon. Cette attribution ne semble pas si farfelue que cela, m\u00eame si la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e0 partir du flux du point semble provenir de Speusippe plut\u00f4t que de son oncle Platon. Il n'en reste pas moins que, du moins selon l'interpr\u00e9tation de l'\u00c9cole de T\u00fcbingen, le sch\u00e9ma de d\u00e9rivation point\/nombre-ligne-surface-corps est d'une importance tout \u00e0 fait fondamentale pour l'ontologie \u00e9sot\u00e9rique de Platon.\r\n\r\nSans acc\u00e8s aux Dialogues de Platon, Albert le Grand finit donc, quelles qu'aient \u00e9t\u00e9 ses sources prochaines et lointaines pour les doctrines platoniciennes, par d\u00e9fendre une image de Platon qui correspond, dans une large mesure, \u00e0 celle de l'\u00c9cole de T\u00fcbingen.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 la question de ses sources et de la voie de transmission de ces doctrines, Albert a pu trouver chez la plus importante d'entre elles \u2014 la pens\u00e9e d'Avicenne \u2014 de quoi nourrir une r\u00e9flexion approfondie sur cette question de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques. Cependant, le commentaire d'Albert aux \u00c9l\u00e9ments d'Euclide montre qu'\u00e0 cette influence avicennienne est venue s'ajouter une autre, ind\u00e9pendante : la doctrine g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de Simplicius, v\u00e9hicul\u00e9e par la traduction latine du commentaire euclidien d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b.\r\n\r\nQu'en est-il de la relation entre Simplicius et Avicenne ? Nous avons vu que certains \u00e9l\u00e9ments du sch\u00e9ma simplicien de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques se retrouvent d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans l'\u00c9cole de Bagdad, autour de Ya\u1e25y\u0101 ibn \u2018Ad\u012b. G. Freudenthal, pour sa part, avait conclu de son \u00e9tude de la g\u00e9om\u00e9trie d'al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b qu'\u00ab il est fort probable qu'al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b connaissait soit les ouvrages de Simplicius auxquels an-Nair\u012bz\u012b avait acc\u00e8s, soit seulement la br\u00e8ve citation [p. 2, 19-23 Curze] contenue dans le commentaire d'an-Nair\u012bz\u012b \u00bb.\r\n\r\nQuoi qu'il en soit, il semble difficile d'\u00e9viter la conclusion qu'Avicenne connaissait bien la doctrine g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de Simplicius, du moins telle que transmise par le commentaire d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b, soit par l'interm\u00e9diaire de l'\u00c9cole de Bagdad, soit par ses lectures propres.\r\n\r\nDe Platon \u00e0 Speusippe, en passant par des sources hell\u00e9nistiques telles que Sextus Empiricus, la doctrine de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques a fini, au VIe si\u00e8cle apr. J.-C., par faire partie int\u00e9grante du bagage intellectuel des derniers n\u00e9oplatoniciens tels que Philopon et Simplicius.\r\n\r\nC'est, semble-t-il, la pens\u00e9e g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de ce dernier qui, traduite en arabe et pr\u00e9serv\u00e9e dans le commentaire euclidien d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b, contribue \u00e0 former la pens\u00e9e d'Avicenne au premier quart du XIe si\u00e8cle, avant d'arriver, quelque deux si\u00e8cles plus tard, sous les yeux de ce lecteur omnivore qu'\u00e9tait Albert le Grand.\r\n\r\nPour expliquer cet itin\u00e9raire de la pens\u00e9e, il n'est sans doute pas n\u00e9cessaire de postuler que, comme le soutient Mme Hadot, Simplicius ait r\u00e9dig\u00e9 son Commentaire d'Euclide \u00e0 Harran. Mais rien n'exclut cette hypoth\u00e8se non plus, et quand on pense aux \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve rassembl\u00e9s par Mme Hadot et d'autres concernant l'importance du legs de l'\u00c9cole math\u00e9matique de Simplicius dans le monde arabe, on peut estimer que le cas du sch\u00e9ma de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e0 partir du point ne fait qu'ajouter une brique de plus \u00e0 l'\u00e9difice des preuves t\u00e9moignant en faveur de l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'\u00ab \u00c9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne de Harran \u00bb. [conclusion p. 28-29]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mVjTC4EIjO2Aggg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Priscianus of Ludia, 2008
By: Baltussen, Han, Keyser, Paul T. (Ed.), Irby-Massie, Georgia L. (Ed.)

Title	Priscianus of Ludia
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs
Pages	695-696
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L.
Translator(s)

Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian’s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle’s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4–5). Together with Themistius’ summary version of Aristotle’s On the Soul, Priscian’s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus’ psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, but this is still disputed. Priscian’s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex—only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering—without originality—topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1263","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1263,"authors_free":[{"id":1853,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2092,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2093,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus of Ludia","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus of Ludia"},"abstract":"Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian\u2019s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle\u2019s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4\u20135).\r\n\r\nTogether with Themistius\u2019 summary version of Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, Priscian\u2019s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus\u2019 psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, but this is still disputed.\r\n\r\nPriscian\u2019s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex\u2014only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering\u2014without originality\u2014topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1263,"section_of":1265,"pages":"695-696","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1263,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"695-696"}},"sort":[2008]}

Simplicius of Kilikia, 2008
By: Baltussen, Han, Keyser, Paul T. (Ed.), Irby-Massie, Georgia L. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius of Kilikia
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs
Pages	743-745
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L.
Translator(s)

Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Upon Justinian’s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references). He preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus’ summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers. With Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the “return” to God. In explicating Aristotle’s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle’s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality. On scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle’s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called “supernatural.” Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle’s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination. Simplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle’s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato’s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world. Contributions to the Concepts of Time and Place His most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus’ criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an “organism” with “members.” Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world’s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius’ idea that measure—a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit—determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12). A second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time’s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being “above change” (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius’ solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought. In his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle. Possible Medical Writings Some evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (“On Setting [Bones]”). [the entire text p. 743-745]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1264","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1264,"authors_free":[{"id":1854,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2094,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2095,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Kilikia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Kilikia"},"abstract":"Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Upon Justinian\u2019s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references).\r\n\r\nHe preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus\u2019 summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers.\r\n\r\nWith Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the \u201creturn\u201d to God.\r\n\r\nIn explicating Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle\u2019s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality.\r\n\r\nOn scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle\u2019s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called \u201csupernatural.\u201d Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle\u2019s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle\u2019s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato\u2019s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world.\r\nContributions to the Concepts of Time and Place\r\n\r\nHis most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus\u2019 criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an \u201corganism\u201d with \u201cmembers.\u201d Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world\u2019s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius\u2019 idea that measure\u2014a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit\u2014determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12).\r\n\r\nA second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time\u2019s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being \u201cabove change\u201d (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius\u2019 solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought.\r\n\r\nIn his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle.\r\nPossible Medical Writings\r\n\r\nSome evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (\u201cOn Setting [Bones]\u201d). [the entire text p. 743-745]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1264,"section_of":1265,"pages":"743-745","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1264,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"743-745"}},"sort":[2008]}

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs, 2008
By: Keyser, Paul T. (Ed.), Irby-Massie, Georgia L. (Ed.)

Title	The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	London – New York
Publisher	Routledge
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L.
Translator(s)

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world’s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work – resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science. Additional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/up8tW1NBxVY23yX

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1265","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1265,"authors_free":[{"id":1855,"entry_id":1265,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T. ","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1856,"entry_id":1265,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","main_title":{"title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs"},"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī, 2008
By: Chase, Michael, Newton, Lloyd A. (Ed.)

Title	The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories
Pages	9-29
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)	Newton, Lloyd A.
Translator(s)

The particular parallels we have noted between Thomas and al-Fārābī may be indicative of a deeper similarity, which Simplicius’ commentaries, including that on the Categories, may help to explain. In a reversal of traditional viewpoints, recent commentators have argued that the philosophies of both Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī, usually considered as followers of the Peripatetic school, are in fact basically Platonist. Paradoxically, however, the same scholars have also argued that neither of these philosophers had actually read Plato. This odd situation can be explained by the nature of the sources of both Thomas and al-Fārābī, which present definite similarities. Neither had access to complete translations of the works of Plato. Both were consequently forced to rely on the works of Aristotle, but this was an Aristotelian corpus quite unlike the one studied in the West today. It included works—the Liber de Causis was most influential in Thomas’ case, while the Theology of Aristotle may have played an analogous role in the case of al-Fārābī—which we now know to be apocryphal compilations of Neoplatonic texts deriving from Proclus, Plotinus, and possibly Porphyry. Equally importantly, however, it included Neoplatonic commentaries on the genuine works of Aristotle, including those by Simplicius. As we have glimpsed, the philosophy of both al-Fārābī and Thomas Aquinas is profoundly influenced by the kind of Neoplatonizing interpretation of Aristotle that fills the commentaries of Simplicius, Ammonius, Themistius, and other late antique professors of philosophy. These commentaries are the source of most of the common elements in their thought, the most crucial of which is no doubt the idea of the ultimate reconcilability of Plato and Aristotle. According to both Thomas and al-Fārābī, both Plato and Aristotle teach that there is a single divine cause that perpetually distributes being to all entities in a continuous, graded hierarchy. There are, of course, also profound differences in the ways Thomas and al-Fārābī interpreted and utilized the doctrines they both received from the Alexandrian commentators. For Thomas, who (certainly indirectly) follows Iamblichus in this regard, philosophy occupies a subordinate position within theology, while for al-Fārābī, whatever his genuine religious beliefs may have been, philosophy remains the nec plus ultra, capable of providing ultimate happiness through conjunction with the Agent Intellect. The contrasting attitudes of Thomas and al-Fārābī may, in turn, be traceable to a similar contrast within late antique Neoplatonism. Porphyry of Tyre was considered by his successors to have held that philosophy alone was sufficient for salvation, consisting in the soul’s definitive return to the intelligible world whence it came, while Iamblichus placed the emphasis on the need for religion, in the form of theurgical operations and prayers, and the grace of the gods. What seems to have been at stake in the arguments between the two was ultimately no less than the nature of philosophy: is it the ultimate discipline, sufficient for happiness, as Porphyry held, or is it merely an ancilla theologiae, as was the view of Iamblichus? Thomas and al-Fārābī, who had at least some knowledge of these debates through the intermediary of such sources as Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories, seem to have prolonged this controversy, Thomas siding with Iamblichus and al-Fārābī with Porphyry. Wayne Hankey has written: "Not only for both [Iamblichus and Aquinas] is philosophy contained within theology, and theology contained within religion, but also, for both, centuries its great teachers are priests and saints. In order to be doing philosophy as spiritual exercise belonging to a way of life, we need not engage directly in self-knowledge." Such ideas were anathema to Porphyry, the other great Neoplatonist whose ideas were transmitted to posterity by, among other sources, Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories. For the Tyrian thinker, as for al-Fārābī writing some six centuries after him, philosophy is not subordinate to religion, nor are its teachers priests or saints, but it is autonomous and capable, all by itself, of ensuring human felicity both in this life and the next. Philosophy for Porphyry was indeed a way of life, an important part of which was reading and commenting on the philosophical texts of the ancient Masters. For Porphyry, however, who wrote a treatise On the “Know thyself”, as for the entire ancient tradition which, as Pierre Hadot has shown, considered philosophy to be a way of life, self-knowledge was the indispensable starting-point for all philosophy. Indeed, one may question whether this was not the case for Iamblichus as well: it was he, after all, who established the First Alcibiades as the first Platonic dialogue to be read and studied in the Neoplatonic curriculum; but the skopos or goal of this dialogue, for Iamblichus, was none other than self-knowledge. Whatever may have been Iamblichus’ particular view, the Hellenic tradition on the whole was unanimous on the crucial importance of self-knowledge as the starting-point for philosophical education. When in 946 the traveler al-Mas‘ūdī visited Harrān in Mesopotamia, center of the pagan Sābians, he saw, inscribed on the door-knocker of the central temple, an inscription in Syriac reading “He who knows his nature becomes god,” which is, as Tardieu was the first to recognize, a reference to Plato’s Alcibiades 133 C. When we recall that, according to some of his biographers, al-Fārābī went to Harrān at about the time of al-Mas‘ūdī’s visit to complete his studies of the Aristotelian Organon, one is not surprised to find that self-knowledge is as essential for al-Fārābī as it was for Porphyry, with several of whose works the Second Master seems to have been familiar. In al-Fārābī’s noetics, the potential intellect (al-‘aql bi’l-quwwah) becomes an intellect in act (al-‘aql bi’l-fi‘l) when, by abstracting the forms in matter from their material accompanying circumstances, it receives these disembodied forms within itself. Unlike the forms stamped in wax, however, which affect only the surface of the receptive matter, these forms penetrate the potential intellect so thoroughly that it becomes identical with the forms it has intelligized. Once it has intelligized all such intelligible forms, the intellect becomes, in act, the totality of intelligibles. The human intellect has thus become an intelligible, and when it intelligizes itself, it becomes an intelligible in act. Thus, for the soul, or rather the soul’s intellect, to know itself is to become, quite literally, identical with its essence, and it can henceforth intelligize all other separate intelligibles—that is, those that have never been in conjunction with matter—in the same way as it knows its own essence. This occurs at the third of al-Fārābī’s four levels or kinds of intellection, the intellectus adeptus (al-‘aql al-mustafād). Thus, for al-Fārābī, self-knowledge plays a crucial role both at the beginning and at a fairly advanced stage of philosophical progress. At the outset, the student must, with the help of an experienced professor, look within himself to find the first intelligibles innate within him which, once elaborated, clarified, and classified, will serve as the premises of the syllogisms he will use as the starting-point of his logical deductions. At a later stage, when through abstraction he has accumulated a sufficient number of intelligibles, he will know his own intellect, and therefore himself, thoroughly. This in turn is the precondition for being able to know the intelligible Forms and separate intelligences which, unlike the material forms incorporated in the sensible world, have never been in conjunction with matter. The way is henceforth open for the permanent conjunction with the Agent Intellect which, according to al-Fārābī, constitutes felicity: that felicity which, for al-Fārābī as for Simplicius, is the only goal and justification for doing philosophy. [conclusion p. 25-29]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yzntZRUqTC8wnrp

{"_index":"sire","_id":"609","_score":null,"_source":{"id":609,"authors_free":[{"id":860,"entry_id":609,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":861,"entry_id":609,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":26,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","free_first_name":"Lloyd A. ","free_last_name":"Newton","norm_person":{"id":26,"first_name":"Lloyd A. ","last_name":"Newton","full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137965583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","main_title":{"title":"The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},"abstract":"The particular parallels we have noted between Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b may be indicative of a deeper similarity, which Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, including that on the Categories, may help to explain.\r\n\r\nIn a reversal of traditional viewpoints, recent commentators have argued that the philosophies of both Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, usually considered as followers of the Peripatetic school, are in fact basically Platonist. Paradoxically, however, the same scholars have also argued that neither of these philosophers had actually read Plato. This odd situation can be explained by the nature of the sources of both Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, which present definite similarities. Neither had access to complete translations of the works of Plato. Both were consequently forced to rely on the works of Aristotle, but this was an Aristotelian corpus quite unlike the one studied in the West today.\r\n\r\nIt included works\u2014the Liber de Causis was most influential in Thomas\u2019 case, while the Theology of Aristotle may have played an analogous role in the case of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2014which we now know to be apocryphal compilations of Neoplatonic texts deriving from Proclus, Plotinus, and possibly Porphyry. Equally importantly, however, it included Neoplatonic commentaries on the genuine works of Aristotle, including those by Simplicius.\r\n\r\nAs we have glimpsed, the philosophy of both al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Thomas Aquinas is profoundly influenced by the kind of Neoplatonizing interpretation of Aristotle that fills the commentaries of Simplicius, Ammonius, Themistius, and other late antique professors of philosophy. These commentaries are the source of most of the common elements in their thought, the most crucial of which is no doubt the idea of the ultimate reconcilability of Plato and Aristotle. According to both Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, both Plato and Aristotle teach that there is a single divine cause that perpetually distributes being to all entities in a continuous, graded hierarchy.\r\n\r\nThere are, of course, also profound differences in the ways Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b interpreted and utilized the doctrines they both received from the Alexandrian commentators. For Thomas, who (certainly indirectly) follows Iamblichus in this regard, philosophy occupies a subordinate position within theology, while for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, whatever his genuine religious beliefs may have been, philosophy remains the nec plus ultra, capable of providing ultimate happiness through conjunction with the Agent Intellect.\r\n\r\nThe contrasting attitudes of Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b may, in turn, be traceable to a similar contrast within late antique Neoplatonism. Porphyry of Tyre was considered by his successors to have held that philosophy alone was sufficient for salvation, consisting in the soul\u2019s definitive return to the intelligible world whence it came, while Iamblichus placed the emphasis on the need for religion, in the form of theurgical operations and prayers, and the grace of the gods.\r\n\r\nWhat seems to have been at stake in the arguments between the two was ultimately no less than the nature of philosophy: is it the ultimate discipline, sufficient for happiness, as Porphyry held, or is it merely an ancilla theologiae, as was the view of Iamblichus? Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, who had at least some knowledge of these debates through the intermediary of such sources as Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories, seem to have prolonged this controversy, Thomas siding with Iamblichus and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b with Porphyry.\r\n\r\nWayne Hankey has written:\r\n\r\n \"Not only for both [Iamblichus and Aquinas] is philosophy contained within theology, and theology contained within religion, but also, for both, centuries its great teachers are priests and saints. In order to be doing philosophy as spiritual exercise belonging to a way of life, we need not engage directly in self-knowledge.\"\r\n\r\nSuch ideas were anathema to Porphyry, the other great Neoplatonist whose ideas were transmitted to posterity by, among other sources, Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories. For the Tyrian thinker, as for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b writing some six centuries after him, philosophy is not subordinate to religion, nor are its teachers priests or saints, but it is autonomous and capable, all by itself, of ensuring human felicity both in this life and the next.\r\n\r\nPhilosophy for Porphyry was indeed a way of life, an important part of which was reading and commenting on the philosophical texts of the ancient Masters. For Porphyry, however, who wrote a treatise On the \u201cKnow thyself\u201d, as for the entire ancient tradition which, as Pierre Hadot has shown, considered philosophy to be a way of life, self-knowledge was the indispensable starting-point for all philosophy.\r\n\r\nIndeed, one may question whether this was not the case for Iamblichus as well: it was he, after all, who established the First Alcibiades as the first Platonic dialogue to be read and studied in the Neoplatonic curriculum; but the skopos or goal of this dialogue, for Iamblichus, was none other than self-knowledge.\r\n\r\nWhatever may have been Iamblichus\u2019 particular view, the Hellenic tradition on the whole was unanimous on the crucial importance of self-knowledge as the starting-point for philosophical education.\r\n\r\nWhen in 946 the traveler al-Mas\u2018\u016bd\u012b visited Harr\u0101n in Mesopotamia, center of the pagan S\u0101bians, he saw, inscribed on the door-knocker of the central temple, an inscription in Syriac reading \u201cHe who knows his nature becomes god,\u201d which is, as Tardieu was the first to recognize, a reference to Plato\u2019s Alcibiades 133 C.\r\n\r\nWhen we recall that, according to some of his biographers, al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b went to Harr\u0101n at about the time of al-Mas\u2018\u016bd\u012b\u2019s visit to complete his studies of the Aristotelian Organon, one is not surprised to find that self-knowledge is as essential for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b as it was for Porphyry, with several of whose works the Second Master seems to have been familiar.\r\n\r\nIn al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s noetics, the potential intellect (al-\u2018aql bi\u2019l-quwwah) becomes an intellect in act (al-\u2018aql bi\u2019l-fi\u2018l) when, by abstracting the forms in matter from their material accompanying circumstances, it receives these disembodied forms within itself.\r\n\r\nUnlike the forms stamped in wax, however, which affect only the surface of the receptive matter, these forms penetrate the potential intellect so thoroughly that it becomes identical with the forms it has intelligized. Once it has intelligized all such intelligible forms, the intellect becomes, in act, the totality of intelligibles.\r\n\r\nThe human intellect has thus become an intelligible, and when it intelligizes itself, it becomes an intelligible in act. Thus, for the soul, or rather the soul\u2019s intellect, to know itself is to become, quite literally, identical with its essence, and it can henceforth intelligize all other separate intelligibles\u2014that is, those that have never been in conjunction with matter\u2014in the same way as it knows its own essence.\r\n\r\nThis occurs at the third of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s four levels or kinds of intellection, the intellectus adeptus (al-\u2018aql al-mustaf\u0101d).\r\n\r\nThus, for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, self-knowledge plays a crucial role both at the beginning and at a fairly advanced stage of philosophical progress. At the outset, the student must, with the help of an experienced professor, look within himself to find the first intelligibles innate within him which, once elaborated, clarified, and classified, will serve as the premises of the syllogisms he will use as the starting-point of his logical deductions.\r\n\r\nAt a later stage, when through abstraction he has accumulated a sufficient number of intelligibles, he will know his own intellect, and therefore himself, thoroughly. This in turn is the precondition for being able to know the intelligible Forms and separate intelligences which, unlike the material forms incorporated in the sensible world, have never been in conjunction with matter.\r\n\r\nThe way is henceforth open for the permanent conjunction with the Agent Intellect which, according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, constitutes felicity: that felicity which, for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b as for Simplicius, is the only goal and justification for doing philosophy. [conclusion p. 25-29]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yzntZRUqTC8wnrp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":26,"full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":609,"section_of":275,"pages":"9-29","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":275,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Newton2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2008","abstract":"Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of \"doing philosophy,\" and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":275,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC, 2008
By: Sharples, Robert W.

Title	Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Acta Antiqua
Volume	48
Issue	1-2
Pages	273-287
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

A re-examination of the question of why, during the revival of interest in Aristotle’s esoteric works in the first century BC, the Categories played such a prominent role. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest precisely because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle’s other works—with the possible exception of the Metaphysics—it revealed aspects of Aristotle’s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9elANNxfsrgxsis

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1023","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1023,"authors_free":[{"id":1542,"entry_id":1023,"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}}],"entry_title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC","main_title":{"title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC"},"abstract":"A re-examination of the question of why, during the revival of interest in Aristotle\u2019s esoteric works in the first century BC, the Categories played such a prominent role. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest precisely because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle\u2019s other works\u2014with the possible exception of the Metaphysics\u2014it revealed aspects of Aristotle\u2019s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9elANNxfsrgxsis","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1023,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Acta Antiqua","volume":"48","issue":"1-2","pages":"273-287"}},"sort":[2008]}

Empedokleův sfairos v pohledech antických interpretů, 2008
By: Hladký, Vojtech

Title	Empedokleův sfairos v pohledech antických interpretů
Type	Article
Language	Czech
Date	2008
Journal	Listy filologické / Folia philologica
Volume	131
Issue	3/4
Pages	379-439
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hladký, Vojtech
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Tento text si klade za cíl prozkoumat způsob, jakým recipují a reinterpretují Empedokleovu koncepci či spíše představu Sfairu pozdější antičtí autoři. Navazuje přitom na naši předchozí práci, ve které jsme se pokusili – především na základě textů Empedoklea samého – tento moment Empedokleova rozvrhu světa rekonstruovat.² V něm, jak známo, čtyři základní a věčné prvky-živly (oheň, vzduch, vodu, zemi) přetvářejí, navzájem slučují a rozlučují dvě formující síly – Láska a Svár. Působením Lásky tak z původně jednoduchých prvků vznikají vyšší a složitější organismy a vůbec všechny věci, naproti tomu působením Sváru dochází k jejich rozkladu a návratu prvků do jejich původní čisté podoby. Podle závěru našeho předchozího článku je Sfairos, vzniklý v okamžiku největšího vzepětí Lásky, ve skutečnosti jakýsi obrovský organismus, zahrnující do sebe všechny předtím vzniklé věci. Ty se dohromady spojí buď tak, že doslova fyzicky srostou, či přinejmenším dohromady vytvoří harmonický svět, v němž Láska zaručuje mírumilovné soužití a soubytí všeho, co předtím ze základních prvků vytvořila. Navíc je snad možné ztotožnit Sfairos se „svatou a nadlidskou myslí (φρην ιερή και άθέσφατος)“, o níž tento autor mluví ve svém zlomku B 134. Jsme si přitom vědomi, že tato interpretace Empedokleova Sfairu je dosti neobvyklá. Vzhledem k tomu, že se nám báseň velkého Akragantťana nezachovala v úplnosti a její přesné filozofické sdělení bylo na mnoha místech ne zcela jasné patrně již pro antického čtenáře, musíme se bohužel o mnoha aspektech nauky, kterou hlásá, pouze dohadovat. V předchozí práci jsme se pokusili rekonstruovat Sfairos na základě rozboru zachovaného Empedokleova textu doplněného o starověká svědectví. Snažíme-li se nyní provést rozbor výkladů Sfairu, které podávají Empedokleovi filozofičtí následovníci, činíme tak rovněž proto, abychom naši poněkud nezvyklou interpretaci dále nepřímo podpořili a zároveň poukázali na vliv, jaký Empedoklés – zejména pak v případě Platónových dialogů Tímaia, Politika a Symposia – mohl mít. Projdeme-li v detailu ohlasy Empedoklea u pozdějších autorů, které jsou možná někdy poněkud překvapivé, můžeme si pak na konci našeho zkoumání znovu položit otázku, zda by nemohly vrhnout nové světlo na jeho bohužel jen velmi torzovitě zachované dílo. [introduction p. 379-381] Übersetzung: Dieser Text zielt darauf ab, die Art und Weise zu untersuchen, wie spätere antike Autoren Empedokles’ Konzept oder eher die Vorstellung des Sphairos aufnehmen und reinterpretieren. Dabei knüpft er an unsere vorherige Arbeit an, in der wir versucht haben – vor allem auf der Grundlage von Empedokles’ eigenen Texten – diesen Aspekt von Empedokles’ Weltentwurf zu rekonstruieren.² Darin, wie bekannt, formen, verbinden und trennen sich die vier grundlegenden und ewigen Elemente (Feuer, Luft, Wasser, Erde) durch das Wirken von zwei gestaltenden Kräften – Liebe und Streit. Durch die Wirkung der Liebe entstehen aus den ursprünglich einfachen Elementen höhere und komplexere Organismen und überhaupt alle Dinge, während durch die Wirkung des Streits deren Zerfall und die Rückkehr der Elemente in ihre ursprüngliche reine Form erfolgt. Laut dem Schluss unserer vorherigen Arbeit ist der Sphairos, der im Moment des höchsten Wirkens der Liebe entsteht, tatsächlich eine Art riesiger Organismus, der alle zuvor entstandenen Dinge in sich vereint. Diese verbinden sich entweder dadurch, dass sie buchstäblich physisch miteinander verschmelzen, oder zumindest gemeinsam eine harmonische Welt schaffen, in der die Liebe ein friedliches Zusammenleben und Mitsein all dessen garantiert, was zuvor aus den grundlegenden Elementen erschaffen wurde. Darüber hinaus ist es vielleicht möglich, den Sphairos mit dem „heiligen und übermenschlichen Geist (φρην ιερή και άθέσφατος)“ zu identifizieren, von dem dieser Autor in seinem Fragment B 134 spricht. Wir sind uns dabei bewusst, dass diese Interpretation des Sphairos von Empedokles recht ungewöhnlich ist. Da das Gedicht des großen Akragantinischen Dichters nicht vollständig erhalten ist und seine genaue philosophische Aussage wohl schon für die antiken Leser an vielen Stellen nicht völlig klar war, müssen wir uns leider in vielen Aspekten der Lehre, die er verkündet, nur auf Vermutungen stützen. In der vorherigen Arbeit haben wir versucht, den Sphairos auf der Grundlage der Analyse des erhaltenen Textes von Empedokles, ergänzt durch antike Zeugnisse, zu rekonstruieren. Wenn wir nun versuchen, die Auslegungen des Sphairos zu analysieren, die von den philosophischen Nachfolgern des Empedokles gegeben wurden, tun wir dies auch, um unsere etwas ungewöhnliche Interpretation indirekt weiter zu stützen und zugleich auf den Einfluss hinzuweisen, den Empedokles – insbesondere im Fall der platonischen Dialoge Timaios, Politikos und Symposion – möglicherweise hatte. Wenn wir die Rezeptionen von Empedokles bei späteren Autoren im Detail durchgehen, die manchmal vielleicht etwas überraschend sind, können wir uns am Ende unserer Untersuchung erneut die Frage stellen, ob diese nicht ein neues Licht auf sein leider nur sehr fragmentarisch erhaltenes Werk werfen könnten.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DoW1OJgnzqLFDXs

{"_index":"sire","_id":"778","_score":null,"_source":{"id":778,"authors_free":[{"id":1142,"entry_id":778,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":180,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojtech ","free_first_name":"Vojtech","free_last_name":"Hladk\u00fd","norm_person":{"id":180,"first_name":"Vojt\u011bch","last_name":"Hladk\u00fd","full_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojt\u011bch","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedokle\u016fv sfairos v pohledech antick\u00fdch interpret\u016f","main_title":{"title":"Empedokle\u016fv sfairos v pohledech antick\u00fdch interpret\u016f"},"abstract":"Tento text si klade za c\u00edl prozkoumat zp\u016fsob, jak\u00fdm recipuj\u00ed a reinterpretuj\u00ed Empedokleovu koncepci \u010di sp\u00ed\u0161e p\u0159edstavu Sfairu pozd\u011bj\u0161\u00ed anti\u010dt\u00ed auto\u0159i. Navazuje p\u0159itom na na\u0161i p\u0159edchoz\u00ed pr\u00e1ci, ve kter\u00e9 jsme se pokusili \u2013 p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm na z\u00e1klad\u011b text\u016f Empedoklea sam\u00e9ho \u2013 tento moment Empedokleova rozvrhu sv\u011bta rekonstruovat.\u00b2 V n\u011bm, jak zn\u00e1mo, \u010dty\u0159i z\u00e1kladn\u00ed a v\u011b\u010dn\u00e9 prvky-\u017eivly (ohe\u0148, vzduch, vodu, zemi) p\u0159etv\u00e1\u0159ej\u00ed, navz\u00e1jem slu\u010duj\u00ed a rozlu\u010duj\u00ed dv\u011b formuj\u00edc\u00ed s\u00edly \u2013 L\u00e1ska a Sv\u00e1r. P\u016fsoben\u00edm L\u00e1sky tak z p\u016fvodn\u011b jednoduch\u00fdch prvk\u016f vznikaj\u00ed vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed a slo\u017eit\u011bj\u0161\u00ed organismy a v\u016fbec v\u0161echny v\u011bci, naproti tomu p\u016fsoben\u00edm Sv\u00e1ru doch\u00e1z\u00ed k jejich rozkladu a n\u00e1vratu prvk\u016f do jejich p\u016fvodn\u00ed \u010dist\u00e9 podoby.\r\n\r\nPodle z\u00e1v\u011bru na\u0161eho p\u0159edchoz\u00edho \u010dl\u00e1nku je Sfairos, vznikl\u00fd v okam\u017eiku nejv\u011bt\u0161\u00edho vzep\u011bt\u00ed L\u00e1sky, ve skute\u010dnosti jak\u00fdsi obrovsk\u00fd organismus, zahrnuj\u00edc\u00ed do sebe v\u0161echny p\u0159edt\u00edm vznikl\u00e9 v\u011bci. Ty se dohromady spoj\u00ed bu\u010f tak, \u017ee doslova fyzicky srostou, \u010di p\u0159inejmen\u0161\u00edm dohromady vytvo\u0159\u00ed harmonick\u00fd sv\u011bt, v n\u011bm\u017e L\u00e1ska zaru\u010duje m\u00edrumilovn\u00e9 sou\u017eit\u00ed a soubyt\u00ed v\u0161eho, co p\u0159edt\u00edm ze z\u00e1kladn\u00edch prvk\u016f vytvo\u0159ila. Nav\u00edc je snad mo\u017en\u00e9 ztoto\u017enit Sfairos se \u201esvatou a nadlidskou mysl\u00ed (\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ac\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)\u201c, o n\u00ed\u017e tento autor mluv\u00ed ve sv\u00e9m zlomku B 134.\r\n\r\nJsme si p\u0159itom v\u011bdomi, \u017ee tato interpretace Empedokleova Sfairu je dosti neobvykl\u00e1. Vzhledem k tomu, \u017ee se n\u00e1m b\u00e1se\u0148 velk\u00e9ho Akragant\u0165ana nezachovala v \u00faplnosti a jej\u00ed p\u0159esn\u00e9 filozofick\u00e9 sd\u011blen\u00ed bylo na mnoha m\u00edstech ne zcela jasn\u00e9 patrn\u011b ji\u017e pro antick\u00e9ho \u010dten\u00e1\u0159e, mus\u00edme se bohu\u017eel o mnoha aspektech nauky, kterou hl\u00e1s\u00e1, pouze dohadovat. V p\u0159edchoz\u00ed pr\u00e1ci jsme se pokusili rekonstruovat Sfairos na z\u00e1klad\u011b rozboru zachovan\u00e9ho Empedokleova textu dopln\u011bn\u00e9ho o starov\u011bk\u00e1 sv\u011bdectv\u00ed.\r\n\r\nSna\u017e\u00edme-li se nyn\u00ed prov\u00e9st rozbor v\u00fdklad\u016f Sfairu, kter\u00e9 pod\u00e1vaj\u00ed Empedokleovi filozofi\u010dt\u00ed n\u00e1sledovn\u00edci, \u010din\u00edme tak rovn\u011b\u017e proto, abychom na\u0161i pon\u011bkud nezvyklou interpretaci d\u00e1le nep\u0159\u00edmo podpo\u0159ili a z\u00e1rove\u0148 pouk\u00e1zali na vliv, jak\u00fd Empedokl\u00e9s \u2013 zejm\u00e9na pak v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b Plat\u00f3nov\u00fdch dialog\u016f T\u00edmaia, Politika a Symposia \u2013 mohl m\u00edt. Projdeme-li v detailu ohlasy Empedoklea u pozd\u011bj\u0161\u00edch autor\u016f, kter\u00e9 jsou mo\u017en\u00e1 n\u011bkdy pon\u011bkud p\u0159ekvapiv\u00e9, m\u016f\u017eeme si pak na konci na\u0161eho zkoum\u00e1n\u00ed znovu polo\u017eit ot\u00e1zku, zda by nemohly vrhnout nov\u00e9 sv\u011btlo na jeho bohu\u017eel jen velmi torzovit\u011b zachovan\u00e9 d\u00edlo. [introduction p. 379-381] \u00dcbersetzung: Dieser Text zielt darauf ab, die Art und Weise zu untersuchen, wie sp\u00e4tere antike Autoren Empedokles\u2019 Konzept oder eher die Vorstellung des Sphairos aufnehmen und reinterpretieren. Dabei kn\u00fcpft er an unsere vorherige Arbeit an, in der wir versucht haben \u2013 vor allem auf der Grundlage von Empedokles\u2019 eigenen Texten \u2013 diesen Aspekt von Empedokles\u2019 Weltentwurf zu rekonstruieren.\u00b2 Darin, wie bekannt, formen, verbinden und trennen sich die vier grundlegenden und ewigen Elemente (Feuer, Luft, Wasser, Erde) durch das Wirken von zwei gestaltenden Kr\u00e4ften \u2013 Liebe und Streit. Durch die Wirkung der Liebe entstehen aus den urspr\u00fcnglich einfachen Elementen h\u00f6here und komplexere Organismen und \u00fcberhaupt alle Dinge, w\u00e4hrend durch die Wirkung des Streits deren Zerfall und die R\u00fcckkehr der Elemente in ihre urspr\u00fcngliche reine Form erfolgt.\r\n\r\nLaut dem Schluss unserer vorherigen Arbeit ist der Sphairos, der im Moment des h\u00f6chsten Wirkens der Liebe entsteht, tats\u00e4chlich eine Art riesiger Organismus, der alle zuvor entstandenen Dinge in sich vereint. Diese verbinden sich entweder dadurch, dass sie buchst\u00e4blich physisch miteinander verschmelzen, oder zumindest gemeinsam eine harmonische Welt schaffen, in der die Liebe ein friedliches Zusammenleben und Mitsein all dessen garantiert, was zuvor aus den grundlegenden Elementen erschaffen wurde. Dar\u00fcber hinaus ist es vielleicht m\u00f6glich, den Sphairos mit dem \u201eheiligen und \u00fcbermenschlichen Geist (\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ac\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)\u201c zu identifizieren, von dem dieser Autor in seinem Fragment B 134 spricht.\r\n\r\nWir sind uns dabei bewusst, dass diese Interpretation des Sphairos von Empedokles recht ungew\u00f6hnlich ist. Da das Gedicht des gro\u00dfen Akragantinischen Dichters nicht vollst\u00e4ndig erhalten ist und seine genaue philosophische Aussage wohl schon f\u00fcr die antiken Leser an vielen Stellen nicht v\u00f6llig klar war, m\u00fcssen wir uns leider in vielen Aspekten der Lehre, die er verk\u00fcndet, nur auf Vermutungen st\u00fctzen. In der vorherigen Arbeit haben wir versucht, den Sphairos auf der Grundlage der Analyse des erhaltenen Textes von Empedokles, erg\u00e4nzt durch antike Zeugnisse, zu rekonstruieren.\r\n\r\nWenn wir nun versuchen, die Auslegungen des Sphairos zu analysieren, die von den philosophischen Nachfolgern des Empedokles gegeben wurden, tun wir dies auch, um unsere etwas ungew\u00f6hnliche Interpretation indirekt weiter zu st\u00fctzen und zugleich auf den Einfluss hinzuweisen, den Empedokles \u2013 insbesondere im Fall der platonischen Dialoge Timaios, Politikos und Symposion \u2013 m\u00f6glicherweise hatte. Wenn wir die Rezeptionen von Empedokles bei sp\u00e4teren Autoren im Detail durchgehen, die manchmal vielleicht etwas \u00fcberraschend sind, k\u00f6nnen wir uns am Ende unserer Untersuchung erneut die Frage stellen, ob diese nicht ein neues Licht auf sein leider nur sehr fragmentarisch erhaltenes Werk werfen k\u00f6nnten.","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"Czech","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DoW1OJgnzqLFDXs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":180,"full_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojt\u011bch","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":778,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Listy filologick\u00e9 \/ Folia philologica","volume":"131","issue":"3\/4","pages":"379-439"}},"sort":[2008]}

Methods in examining sense-perception: John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius, 2008
By: Lautner, Peter

Title	Methods in examining sense-perception: John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Laval théologique et philosophique
Volume	64
Issue	3
Pages	651-661
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lautner, Peter
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The paper discusses the methods applied by Philoponus and Pseudo-Simplicius in commenting on Aristotle’s theory of sense-perception, and indicates their differences. Philoponus frequently employs medical theories and empirical material, mostly taken from Aristotle, to highlight not only the activities of the particular senses, but also a certain kind of awareness and the way we experience our inner states. By contrast, his Athenian contemporary Pseudo-Simplicius disregards such aspects altogether. His method is deductive: He relies on some general thesis, partly taken from Iamblichus, from which to derive theses on sense-perception. The emphasis falls on Philoponus’ doctrine since his reliance on medical views leads to an interesting blend of Platonic and medical/empirical theories. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Hp3HmG57KFdbOQW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"820","_score":null,"_source":{"id":820,"authors_free":[{"id":1221,"entry_id":820,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Methods in examining sense-perception: John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Methods in examining sense-perception: John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"The paper discusses the methods applied by Philoponus and Pseudo-Simplicius in commenting on Aristotle\u2019s theory of sense-perception, and indicates their differences. Philoponus frequently employs medical theories and empirical material, mostly taken from Aristotle, to highlight not only the activities of the particular senses, but also a certain kind of awareness and the way we experience our inner states. By contrast, his Athenian contemporary Pseudo-Simplicius disregards such aspects altogether. His method is deductive: He relies on some general thesis, partly taken from Iamblichus, from which to derive theses on sense-perception. The emphasis falls on Philoponus\u2019 doctrine since his reliance on medical views leads to an interesting blend of Platonic and medical\/empirical theories. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hp3HmG57KFdbOQW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":820,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Laval th\u00e9ologique et philosophique","volume":"64","issue":"3","pages":"651-661"}},"sort":[2008]}

Nicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine, 2008
By: Fazzo, Silvia

Title	Nicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2008
Journal	Revue des Études Grecques
Volume	121
Issue	1
Pages	99-126
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Fazzo, Silvia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The paper discusses the attribution of the compendium De Philosophia Aristotelis to Nicolaus of Damascus the general historian (fl.: end 1st c. BC). By contrast, there are reasons to believe that the work was written by a Peripatetic Nicolaus between the 3rd and the 6th century, most likely from Syria in the 4th c. AD. Among the consequences: one piece of evidence for interest in a wide range of Aristotle's works already in the 1st century BC-lst century AD is removed; the supposedly earliest evidence for Metaphysics as the title of Aristotle's work is moved to a later date; the idea that Peripatetic activity more or less ceased with Alexander, Thémistius being the only exception, is weakened by another counter-example. On the contrary, a distinctively Peripatetic culture must have been still alive in Themistius' and Nicolas' time, when special tools were produced both for teaching activity and for the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to later eras. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jxgfqFdijkuOVZK

{"_index":"sire","_id":"822","_score":null,"_source":{"id":822,"authors_free":[{"id":1223,"entry_id":822,"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}}],"entry_title":"Nicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identit\u00e9, sa datation, son origine","main_title":{"title":"Nicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identit\u00e9, sa datation, son origine"},"abstract":"The paper discusses the attribution of the compendium De Philosophia Aristotelis to Nicolaus of Damascus the general historian (fl.: end 1st c. BC). By contrast, there are reasons to believe that the work was written by a Peripatetic Nicolaus between the 3rd and the 6th century, most likely from Syria in the 4th c. AD. Among the consequences: one piece of evidence for interest in a wide range of Aristotle's works already in the 1st century BC-lst century AD is removed; the supposedly earliest evidence for Metaphysics as the title of Aristotle's work is moved to a later date; the idea that Peripatetic activity more or less ceased with Alexander, Th\u00e9mistius being the only exception, is weakened by another counter-example. On the contrary, a distinctively Peripatetic culture must have been still alive in Themistius' and Nicolas' time, when special tools were produced both for teaching activity and for the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to later eras. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxgfqFdijkuOVZK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":822,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"121","issue":"1","pages":"99-126"}},"sort":[2008]}

Metaphysicizing the Aristotelian Categories. Two References to the Parmenides in Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories (Simplicius, In Categorias 4 [CAG 8, 75,6 Kalbfleisch] and In Categorias 8 [291,2 K.]), 2008
By: Bechtle, Gerald

Title	Metaphysicizing the Aristotelian Categories. Two References to the Parmenides in Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories (Simplicius, In Categorias 4 [CAG 8, 75,6 Kalbfleisch] and In Categorias 8 [291,2 K.])
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum
Volume	12
Issue	1
Pages	150-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bechtle, Gerald
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Der Artikel geht der Frage nach, inwiefern die aristotelische Kategorienschrift im Neuplatonismus zur Deutung der ersten Prinzipien genutzt und dadurch selbst als Teil metaphysischer Überlegungen etabliert wurde. Dadurch stellt sich die Frage, ob eine Verbindung mit der Rezeption von Platons Parmenides besteht, der für die Deutung der höchsten Prinzipien grundlegend war. Dies wird exemplarisch an Simplicius und dessen Kategorienkommentar untersucht. In diesem geht Simplicius an zwei Stellen explizit auf Platons Parmenides ein. Beide Stellen werden analysiert. Es zeigt sich, dass Simplicius die Terminologie der Kategorien durchaus auf Gott, das Gute oder das Eine anwendet, auch wenn an der weit verbreiteten Ansicht, die Kategorien könnten sich nur auf sprachlich ausdrückbare, also wahrnehmbare Dinge beziehen, nicht gerüttelt wird. Hiervon ist jedoch die Position des Iamblichus zu unterscheiden, der die Kategorien auch für den noetischen Bereich annehmen konnte. In eine ähnliche Richtung weist die zweite explizite Bezugnahme auf Platons Parmenides in Simplicius’ Kategorienkommentar, die sich mit dem Ausschluss von Mehr-Weniger beschäftigt. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8GUIq8DJVD3GuiA

{"_index":"sire","_id":"824","_score":null,"_source":{"id":824,"authors_free":[{"id":1225,"entry_id":824,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":420,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bechtle, Gerald","free_first_name":"Gerald","free_last_name":"Bechtle","norm_person":{"id":420,"first_name":"Gerald","last_name":"Bechtle","full_name":"Bechtle, Gerald","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120560038","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Metaphysicizing the Aristotelian Categories. Two References to the Parmenides in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories (Simplicius, In Categorias 4 [CAG 8, 75,6 Kalbfleisch] and In Categorias 8 [291,2 K.])","main_title":{"title":"Metaphysicizing the Aristotelian Categories. Two References to the Parmenides in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories (Simplicius, In Categorias 4 [CAG 8, 75,6 Kalbfleisch] and In Categorias 8 [291,2 K.])"},"abstract":"Der Artikel geht der Frage nach, inwiefern die aristotelische Kategorienschrift im Neuplatonismus zur Deutung der ersten Prinzipien genutzt und dadurch selbst als Teil metaphysischer \u00dcberlegungen etabliert wurde. Dadurch stellt sich die Frage, ob eine Verbindung mit der Rezeption von Platons Parmenides besteht, der f\u00fcr die Deutung der h\u00f6chsten Prinzipien grundlegend war. Dies wird exemplarisch an Simplicius und dessen Kategorienkommentar untersucht. In diesem geht Simplicius an zwei Stellen explizit auf Platons Parmenides ein. Beide Stellen werden analysiert. Es zeigt sich, dass Simplicius die Terminologie der Kategorien durchaus auf Gott, das Gute oder das Eine anwendet, auch wenn an der weit verbreiteten Ansicht, die Kategorien k\u00f6nnten sich nur auf sprachlich ausdr\u00fcckbare, also wahrnehmbare Dinge beziehen, nicht ger\u00fcttelt wird.\r\n\r\nHiervon ist jedoch die Position des Iamblichus zu unterscheiden, der die Kategorien auch f\u00fcr den noetischen Bereich annehmen konnte. In eine \u00e4hnliche Richtung weist die zweite explizite Bezugnahme auf Platons Parmenides in Simplicius\u2019 Kategorienkommentar, die sich mit dem Ausschluss von Mehr-Weniger besch\u00e4ftigt. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8GUIq8DJVD3GuiA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":420,"full_name":"Bechtle, Gerald","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":824,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Antikes Christentum","volume":"12","issue":"1","pages":"150-165"}},"sort":[2008]}

La Brillance de Nestis (Empédocle, fr. 96), 2008
By: Picot, Jean-Claude

Title	La Brillance de Nestis (Empédocle, fr. 96)
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2008
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	26
Issue	1
Pages	75-100
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Picot, Jean-Claude
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Dans le De l'âme, Aristote illustre l'importance de la proportion (λόγος) et de la combinaison (σύνθεσις) des éléments entre eux par rapport à ce que sont les éléments ; pour ce faire, il rapporte trois vers d'Empédocle (410 a 4-6) relatifs à la composition de l'os. Simplicius rapporte les mêmes vers et en ajoute un sur l'action d'Harmonie ; il précise avoir tiré sa citation du premier livre de la Physique d'Empédocle. Ce sont ces quatre vers que Diels a recueillis sous le fr. 96 : ἤ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος ἐν εὐτύκτοις χοάνοισι τώ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων λάχε Νήστιδος αἴγλης, τέσσαρα δ' Ἡφαίστοιο· τὰ δ' ὀστέα λευκὰ γένοντο Ἁρμονίης κόλληισιν ἀρηρότα θεσπεσίηισιν. Traduction : Et la terre serviable en ses creusets bien façonnés Reçut deux parts sur huit de la brillance de Nestis, Et quatre d'Héphaïstos ; et ces choses-là devinrent les os blancs, Tenus ensemble par les colles divines d'Harmonie. L'os serait composé de deux parts de la « brillance de Nestis » (δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων [...] Νήστιδος αἴγλης) – où l'on s'accorde à reconnaître l'eau sous le nom de Nestis –, de quatre parts de feu – puisque Héphaïstos désigne traditionnellement le feu (τέσσαρα δ' Ἡφαίστοιο) – et de deux parts de terre (ἤ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος) pour parvenir à huit parts au total. Dans le présent article, je voudrais analyser le texte du fr. 96 pour prendre position sur la question suivante : quel est le sens à donner à l'expression Νήστιδος αἴγλης, c’est-à-dire « la brillance de Nestis » ? La brillance de Nestis désigne-t-elle l'eau, ou bien un mélange d'air et d'eau ? Certaines questions divisent les commentateurs actuels d'Empédocle, mais la question de la brillance de Nestis n'en fait pas partie. En effet, tout le monde ou presque s'accorde pour dire que la brillance de Nestis désigne l'eau et rien d'autre. Pourquoi alors s'interroger sur quelque chose qui ne divise point ? Parce que le consensus est parfois trompeur. Il peut se fixer sur la solution simple, celle qui ne nécessite presque pas ou peu d'explication. Mais à l'analyse, l'objet peut se révéler complexe, et le consensus sur le simple avoir fait fausse route. J'espère parvenir à montrer au fil de cet article que la brillance de Nestis est un mélange d'air et d'eau, et non pas simplement de l'eau. Si Empédocle n'avait pas introduit la brillance (αἴγλη), aucun doute n'aurait été permis pour comprendre que τῶ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων [...] Νήστιδος signifie deux parts sur huit d'eau. Mais la brillance pose problème. Elle pose d'autant plus problème que la tournure τῶ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων [...] Νήστιδος αἴγλης insiste sur le fait que les deux parts en question sont des parts de la brillance et non pas directement des parts de Nestis. Peut-on spontanément dire que pour Empédocle, Nestis apparaît brillante, tout comme Apollon est brillant (αἰγλήτης), tout comme Artémis et Hécate sont dispensatrices de lumière (φωσφόρος) ? Si la brillance n'ajoutait rien à la compréhension de Nestis, la « brillance de Nestis » se réduirait à une façon poétique de dire Nestis. Si, au contraire, la brillance ajoutait quelque chose à Nestis, l'élément qui n'est pas nommé dans le fr. 96, à savoir l'air, pourrait être sous-entendu dans la brillance de Nestis. Nous avons formulé une interprétation en faveur de l'air dans la composition de l'os. La conclusion n'en serait que renforcée si nous pouvions nous appuyer sur un témoignage ancien, différent de celui du Pseudo-Simplicius, voire de Philopon, qu'il est facile de mettre en doute. Ce témoignage existe. Il a été jusqu'ici traité avec indifférence et parfois dévalorisé. C'est celui de Théophraste. Théophraste, critiquant Empédocle, dit que chez cet auteur les os et les poils devraient avoir des sensations puisqu'ils sont formés de tous les éléments (De sensibus, ΧΧΙΠ = A86.23). En d'autres termes, selon Théophraste, les os sont formés des quatre éléments, et les poils de même. Les modernes n'ont pas jugé bon de partir de Théophraste pour contredire Aétius et pour affirmer que l'os doit être composé des quatre éléments. Il n'y a guère de doute que pour Empédocle, il existe des mélanges qui ne comportent pas les quatre éléments. Prenons quelques exemples : le bronze produit par l'alliage de l'étain et du cuivre (fr. 92), le vin mélangé à de l'eau (fr. 91), les couleurs résultant d'un mélange des couleurs de base (fr. 23), la pâte servant à faire le pain (fr. 34), la boue ou la pâte de poterie (fr. 73), l'eau salée de la mer (fr. 55, 56), etc. Mais quand il s'agit des êtres vivant sur terre, il est permis de penser que Philotès fait chaque mélange sans exclure aucun élément, à l'instar du sang et des chairs (fr. 98). En effet, l'œuvre de l'Amour réalisée dans ces êtres éphémères semble préfigurer le grand vivant, composé des quatre éléments, qu'est le Sphairos. Pour les êtres vivants et éphémères, les parts pourraient être inégales dans chaque organe, mais tous les éléments être néanmoins présents. Tout cela, certes, n'est que pure hypothèse. Aucun texte n'affirme que pour Empédocle, toutes les parties des vivants sont un mélange des quatre éléments. Une certitude demeure : on ne peut déconsidérer la parole de Théophraste sur l'os, ce même Théophraste qui disait que pour Empédocle, l'eau est noire. [introduction p. 75-77/conclusion p. 99-100]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Kn8BmLiIsvQZnjb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"863","_score":null,"_source":{"id":863,"authors_free":[{"id":1267,"entry_id":863,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":291,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Picot, Jean-Claude","free_first_name":"Jean-Claude","free_last_name":"Picot","norm_person":{"id":291,"first_name":"Jean-Claude","last_name":"Picot","full_name":"Picot, Jean-Claude","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Brillance de Nestis (Emp\u00e9docle, fr. 96)","main_title":{"title":"La Brillance de Nestis (Emp\u00e9docle, fr. 96)"},"abstract":"Dans le De l'\u00e2me, Aristote illustre l'importance de la proportion (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) et de la combinaison (\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) des \u00e9l\u00e9ments entre eux par rapport \u00e0 ce que sont les \u00e9l\u00e9ments ; pour ce faire, il rapporte trois vers d'Emp\u00e9docle (410 a 4-6) relatifs \u00e0 la composition de l'os. Simplicius rapporte les m\u00eames vers et en ajoute un sur l'action d'Harmonie ; il pr\u00e9cise avoir tir\u00e9 sa citation du premier livre de la Physique d'Emp\u00e9docle. Ce sont ces quatre vers que Diels a recueillis sous le fr. 96 :\r\n\r\n \u1f24 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\r\n \u03c4\u03ce \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5 \u039d\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2,\r\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4' \u1f29\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4' \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f70 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\r\n \u1f09\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b7\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\r\n\r\nTraduction :\r\n\r\n Et la terre serviable en ses creusets bien fa\u00e7onn\u00e9s\r\n Re\u00e7ut deux parts sur huit de la brillance de Nestis,\r\n Et quatre d'H\u00e9pha\u00efstos ; et ces choses-l\u00e0 devinrent les os blancs,\r\n Tenus ensemble par les colles divines d'Harmonie.\r\n\r\nL'os serait compos\u00e9 de deux parts de la \u00ab brillance de Nestis \u00bb (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd [...] \u039d\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2) \u2013 o\u00f9 l'on s'accorde \u00e0 reconna\u00eetre l'eau sous le nom de Nestis \u2013, de quatre parts de feu \u2013 puisque H\u00e9pha\u00efstos d\u00e9signe traditionnellement le feu (\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4' \u1f29\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf) \u2013 et de deux parts de terre (\u1f24 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) pour parvenir \u00e0 huit parts au total.\r\n\r\nDans le pr\u00e9sent article, je voudrais analyser le texte du fr. 96 pour prendre position sur la question suivante : quel est le sens \u00e0 donner \u00e0 l'expression \u039d\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00ab la brillance de Nestis \u00bb ? La brillance de Nestis d\u00e9signe-t-elle l'eau, ou bien un m\u00e9lange d'air et d'eau ?\r\n\r\nCertaines questions divisent les commentateurs actuels d'Emp\u00e9docle, mais la question de la brillance de Nestis n'en fait pas partie. En effet, tout le monde ou presque s'accorde pour dire que la brillance de Nestis d\u00e9signe l'eau et rien d'autre. Pourquoi alors s'interroger sur quelque chose qui ne divise point ? Parce que le consensus est parfois trompeur. Il peut se fixer sur la solution simple, celle qui ne n\u00e9cessite presque pas ou peu d'explication. Mais \u00e0 l'analyse, l'objet peut se r\u00e9v\u00e9ler complexe, et le consensus sur le simple avoir fait fausse route.\r\n\r\nJ'esp\u00e8re parvenir \u00e0 montrer au fil de cet article que la brillance de Nestis est un m\u00e9lange d'air et d'eau, et non pas simplement de l'eau.\r\n\r\nSi Emp\u00e9docle n'avait pas introduit la brillance (\u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7), aucun doute n'aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 permis pour comprendre que \u03c4\u1ff6 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd [...] \u039d\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 signifie deux parts sur huit d'eau. Mais la brillance pose probl\u00e8me. Elle pose d'autant plus probl\u00e8me que la tournure \u03c4\u1ff6 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd [...] \u039d\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 insiste sur le fait que les deux parts en question sont des parts de la brillance et non pas directement des parts de Nestis. Peut-on spontan\u00e9ment dire que pour Emp\u00e9docle, Nestis appara\u00eet brillante, tout comme Apollon est brillant (\u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), tout comme Art\u00e9mis et H\u00e9cate sont dispensatrices de lumi\u00e8re (\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) ?\r\n\r\nSi la brillance n'ajoutait rien \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension de Nestis, la \u00ab brillance de Nestis \u00bb se r\u00e9duirait \u00e0 une fa\u00e7on po\u00e9tique de dire Nestis. Si, au contraire, la brillance ajoutait quelque chose \u00e0 Nestis, l'\u00e9l\u00e9ment qui n'est pas nomm\u00e9 dans le fr. 96, \u00e0 savoir l'air, pourrait \u00eatre sous-entendu dans la brillance de Nestis.\r\n\r\nNous avons formul\u00e9 une interpr\u00e9tation en faveur de l'air dans la composition de l'os. La conclusion n'en serait que renforc\u00e9e si nous pouvions nous appuyer sur un t\u00e9moignage ancien, diff\u00e9rent de celui du Pseudo-Simplicius, voire de Philopon, qu'il est facile de mettre en doute. Ce t\u00e9moignage existe. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 jusqu'ici trait\u00e9 avec indiff\u00e9rence et parfois d\u00e9valoris\u00e9. C'est celui de Th\u00e9ophraste.\r\n\r\nTh\u00e9ophraste, critiquant Emp\u00e9docle, dit que chez cet auteur les os et les poils devraient avoir des sensations puisqu'ils sont form\u00e9s de tous les \u00e9l\u00e9ments (De sensibus, \u03a7\u03a7\u0399\u03a0 = A86.23). En d'autres termes, selon Th\u00e9ophraste, les os sont form\u00e9s des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments, et les poils de m\u00eame. Les modernes n'ont pas jug\u00e9 bon de partir de Th\u00e9ophraste pour contredire A\u00e9tius et pour affirmer que l'os doit \u00eatre compos\u00e9 des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments.\r\n\r\nIl n'y a gu\u00e8re de doute que pour Emp\u00e9docle, il existe des m\u00e9langes qui ne comportent pas les quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments. Prenons quelques exemples : le bronze produit par l'alliage de l'\u00e9tain et du cuivre (fr. 92), le vin m\u00e9lang\u00e9 \u00e0 de l'eau (fr. 91), les couleurs r\u00e9sultant d'un m\u00e9lange des couleurs de base (fr. 23), la p\u00e2te servant \u00e0 faire le pain (fr. 34), la boue ou la p\u00e2te de poterie (fr. 73), l'eau sal\u00e9e de la mer (fr. 55, 56), etc.\r\n\r\nMais quand il s'agit des \u00eatres vivant sur terre, il est permis de penser que Philot\u00e8s fait chaque m\u00e9lange sans exclure aucun \u00e9l\u00e9ment, \u00e0 l'instar du sang et des chairs (fr. 98). En effet, l'\u0153uvre de l'Amour r\u00e9alis\u00e9e dans ces \u00eatres \u00e9ph\u00e9m\u00e8res semble pr\u00e9figurer le grand vivant, compos\u00e9 des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments, qu'est le Sphairos. Pour les \u00eatres vivants et \u00e9ph\u00e9m\u00e8res, les parts pourraient \u00eatre in\u00e9gales dans chaque organe, mais tous les \u00e9l\u00e9ments \u00eatre n\u00e9anmoins pr\u00e9sents.\r\n\r\nTout cela, certes, n'est que pure hypoth\u00e8se. Aucun texte n'affirme que pour Emp\u00e9docle, toutes les parties des vivants sont un m\u00e9lange des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments. Une certitude demeure : on ne peut d\u00e9consid\u00e9rer la parole de Th\u00e9ophraste sur l'os, ce m\u00eame Th\u00e9ophraste qui disait que pour Emp\u00e9docle, l'eau est noire.\r\n[introduction p. 75-77\/conclusion p. 99-100]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Kn8BmLiIsvQZnjb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":291,"full_name":"Picot, Jean-Claude","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":863,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"26","issue":"1","pages":"75-100"}},"sort":[2008]}

Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories, 2008
By: Newton, Lloyd A. (Ed.)

Title	Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Newton, Lloyd A.
Translator(s)

Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of "doing philosophy," and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.

Online Resources

Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' “De anima”, 2008
By: Perkams, Matthias

{"_index":"sire","_id":"275","_score":null,"_source":{"id":275,"authors_free":[{"id":346,"entry_id":275,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":26,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Newton, Lloyd A.","free_first_name":"Lloyd A.","free_last_name":"Newton","norm_person":{"id":26,"first_name":"Lloyd A. ","last_name":"Newton","full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137965583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories","main_title":{"title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories"},"abstract":"Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of \"doing philosophy,\" and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.","btype":4,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":26,"full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":275,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Title	Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' “De anima”
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2008
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Während Aristoteles’ De anima Seele als Lebensprinzip des körperlichen Wesens definiert, ist sie für die neuplatonischen Kommentatoren dieser Schrift eine geistige, vom Körper trennbare Größe, die sich auf sich selbst zurückwenden kann. Die Studie untersucht, wie die Ausleger Johannes Philoponos, Priskian von Lydien (Pseudo-Simplikios) und Stephanos von Alexandrien (Pseudo-Philoponos) mit dieser Problematik umgingen. In einem ersten Teil werden die philosophischen Konzeptionen der einzelnen Kommentare je für sich dargestellt und historisch eingeordnet. Deren Wert für die De anima-Interpretation wird ebenso diskutiert wie die Identität ihrer Autoren und das Verhältnis des Philoponos zu seinem Lehrer Ammonios. Der zweite Teil ist die erste philosophische Rekonstruktion von Priskians Konzeption des Selbstbezugs der Seele, die als detaillierteste antike Darstellung des menschlichen Selbstbewusstseins gelten kann. Plotins Überlegungen zur Selbsterkenntnis des Geistes werden so auf die menschliche Person übertragen, dass diese sich konstituiert, indem sie um die Wiedergewinnung ihrer ursprünglichen Identität als geistiges Wesen ringt. Um dies zu erläutern unterscheidet Priskian mehrere Formen des Selbstbezugs und setzt sie in Beziehung zueinander. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2008
By: Baltussen, Han

{"_index":"sire","_id":"206","_score":null,"_source":{"id":206,"authors_free":[{"id":263,"entry_id":206,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Selbstbewusstsein in der Sp\u00e4tantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' \u201cDe anima\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Selbstbewusstsein in der Sp\u00e4tantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' \u201cDe anima\u201d"},"abstract":"W\u00e4hrend Aristoteles\u2019 De anima Seele als Lebensprinzip des k\u00f6rperlichen Wesens definiert, ist sie f\u00fcr die neuplatonischen Kommentatoren dieser Schrift eine geistige, vom K\u00f6rper trennbare Gr\u00f6\u00dfe, die sich auf sich selbst zur\u00fcckwenden kann. Die Studie untersucht, wie die Ausleger Johannes Philoponos, Priskian von Lydien (Pseudo-Simplikios) und Stephanos von Alexandrien (Pseudo-Philoponos) mit dieser Problematik umgingen. In einem ersten Teil werden die philosophischen Konzeptionen der einzelnen Kommentare je f\u00fcr sich dargestellt und historisch eingeordnet. Deren Wert f\u00fcr die De anima-Interpretation wird ebenso diskutiert wie die Identit\u00e4t ihrer Autoren und das Verh\u00e4ltnis des Philoponos zu seinem Lehrer Ammonios. Der zweite Teil ist die erste philosophische Rekonstruktion von Priskians Konzeption des Selbstbezugs der Seele, die als detaillierteste antike Darstellung des menschlichen Selbstbewusstseins gelten kann. Plotins \u00dcberlegungen zur Selbsterkenntnis des Geistes werden so auf die menschliche Person \u00fcbertragen, dass diese sich konstituiert, indem sie um die Wiedergewinnung ihrer urspr\u00fcnglichen Identit\u00e4t als geistiges Wesen ringt. Um dies zu erl\u00e4utern unterscheidet Priskian mehrere Formen des Selbstbezugs und setzt sie in Beziehung zueinander. [authors abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ypvYLX6eA8eBcQN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":206,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Title	Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is the first book-length study in English of the interpretative and philosophical approach of the commentaries of Simplicius of Cilicia (c. AD 530). Simplicius' work, marked by doctrinal complexity and scholarship, is unusually self-conscious, learned and rich in its sources, and he is therefore one of those rare authors who is of interest to ancient philosophers, historians and classicists alike. Here, Han Baltussen argues that our understanding of Simplicius' methodology will be greatly enhanced if we study how his scholarly approach impacts on his philosophical exegesis. His commentaries are placed in their intellectual context and several case studies shed light on his critical treatment of earlier philosophers and his often polemical use of previous commentaries. "Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius" not only clarifies the objectives, pre-suppositions and impact of Simplicius' work, but also illustrates how, as a competent philosopher explicating Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, he continues and develops a method that pursues philosophy by way of exegetical engagement with earlier thinkers and commentators. The investigation opens up connections with broader issues, such as the reception of Presocratic philosophy within the commentary tradition, the nature and purpose of his commentaries, and the demise of pagan philosophy.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6fusW1GpgUp9w7O

{"_index":"sire","_id":"226","_score":null,"_source":{"id":226,"authors_free":[{"id":288,"entry_id":226,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is the first book-length study in English of the interpretative and philosophical approach of the commentaries of Simplicius of Cilicia (c. AD 530). Simplicius' work, marked by doctrinal complexity and scholarship, is unusually self-conscious, learned and rich in its sources, and he is therefore one of those rare authors who is of interest to ancient philosophers, historians and classicists alike. Here, Han Baltussen argues that our understanding of Simplicius' methodology will be greatly enhanced if we study how his scholarly approach impacts on his philosophical exegesis. His commentaries are placed in their intellectual context and several case studies shed light on his critical treatment of earlier philosophers and his often polemical use of previous commentaries. \"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius\" not only clarifies the objectives, pre-suppositions and impact of Simplicius' work, but also illustrates how, as a competent philosopher explicating Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, he continues and develops a method that pursues philosophy by way of exegetical engagement with earlier thinkers and commentators. The investigation opens up connections with broader issues, such as the reception of Presocratic philosophy within the commentary tradition, the nature and purpose of his commentaries, and the demise of pagan philosophy.","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6fusW1GpgUp9w7O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":226,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à La Physique d’Aristote: Tradition et Innovation, 2008
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à La Physique d’Aristote: Tradition et Innovation
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2008
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In der griechischen Spätantike definiert sich die Philosophie vor allem über die Auslegung autoritativer Texte wie der Dialoge Platons oder der Abhandlungen des Aristoteles. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die letzten spätantiken Kommentare des Heiden Simplikios und des Christen Philoponos (beide 6. Jh. n.Chr.) zu Aristoteles’ Physik untersucht. Golitsis zeigt auf, wie unterschiedlich die beiden Zeitgenossen die philosophische Tradition bewerten undwelchunterschiedlichen Wegzur Wahrheitsfindung sie daraus ableiten. Der Autor wurde für dieses Buch mit dem "Prix Zographos" der "Association pour l'Encouragement des Études Grecques" ausgezeichnet. [author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p4M88GaW4sKfDxE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"26","_score":null,"_source":{"id":26,"authors_free":[{"id":29,"entry_id":26,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 La Physique d\u2019Aristote: Tradition et Innovation","main_title":{"title":"Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 La Physique d\u2019Aristote: Tradition et Innovation"},"abstract":"In der griechischen Sp\u00e4tantike definiert sich die Philosophie vor allem \u00fcber die Auslegung autoritativer Texte wie der Dialoge Platons oder der Abhandlungen des Aristoteles. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die letzten sp\u00e4tantiken Kommentare des Heiden Simplikios und des Christen Philoponos (beide 6. Jh. n.Chr.) zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik untersucht. Golitsis zeigt auf, wie unterschiedlich die beiden Zeitgenossen die philosophische Tradition bewerten undwelchunterschiedlichen Wegzur Wahrheitsfindung sie daraus ableiten. Der Autor wurde f\u00fcr dieses Buch mit dem \"Prix Zographos\" der \"Association pour l'Encouragement des \u00c9tudes Grecques\" ausgezeichnet. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p4M88GaW4sKfDxE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":26,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' De anima, 2008
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' De anima
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2008
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Quellen und Studien zur Philosophie
Volume	85
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2008
By: Todd, Robert B.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"56","_score":null,"_source":{"id":56,"authors_free":[{"id":64,"entry_id":56,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Selbstbewusstsein in der Sp\u00e4tantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' De anima","main_title":{"title":"Selbstbewusstsein in der Sp\u00e4tantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' De anima"},"abstract":"W\u00e4hrend Aristoteles\u2019 De anima Seele als Lebensprinzip des k\u00f6rperlichen Wesens definiert, ist sie f\u00fcr die neuplatonischen Kommentatoren dieser Schrift eine geistige, vom K\u00f6rper trennbare Gr\u00f6\u00dfe, die sich auf sich selbst zur\u00fcckwenden kann. Die Studie untersucht, wie die Ausleger Johannes Philoponos, Priskian von Lydien (Pseudo-Simplikios) und Stephanos von Alexandrien (Pseudo-Philoponos) mit dieser Problematik umgingen. In einem ersten Teil werden die philosophischen Konzeptionen der einzelnen Kommentare je f\u00fcr sich dargestellt und historisch eingeordnet. Deren Wert f\u00fcr die De anima-Interpretation wird ebenso diskutiert wie die Identit\u00e4t ihrer Autoren und das Verh\u00e4ltnis des Philoponos zu seinem Lehrer Ammonios. Der zweite Teil ist die erste philosophische Rekonstruktion von Priskians Konzeption des Selbstbezugs der Seele, die als detaillierteste antike Darstellung des menschlichen Selbstbewusstseins gelten kann. Plotins \u00dcberlegungen zur Selbsterkenntnis des Geistes werden so auf die menschliche Person \u00fcbertragen, dass diese sich konstituiert, indem sie um die Wiedergewinnung ihrer urspr\u00fcnglichen Identit\u00e4t als geistiges Wesen ringt. Um dies zu erl\u00e4utern unterscheidet Priskian mehrere Formen des Selbstbezugs und setzt sie in Beziehung zueinander. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ypvYLX6eA8eBcQN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":56,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Quellen und Studien zur Philosophie","volume":"85","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Title	Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Aestimatio
Volume	5
Pages	210–224
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Philosophy and Exegesis in Simpliciusf a preparatory study for a history of the ancient philosophical commentary [224nnl0, 13], Han Baltussen addresses the ‘methodology’ of pagan antiquity’s last ma jor Platonist and its greatest philosophical scholar, Simplicius of Cili cia (AD ca 480- ca 540). What ‘methodology’ means can be best appreciated if the book’s general conclusions are first summarized. [introduction p. 210]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oXKF0eqANW36ItV

{"_index":"sire","_id":"461","_score":null,"_source":{"id":461,"authors_free":[{"id":618,"entry_id":461,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commen\u00adtator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commen\u00adtator"},"abstract":"In Philosophy and Exegesis in Simpliciusf a preparatory study for a \r\nhistory of the ancient philosophical commentary [224nnl0, 13], Han \r\nBaltussen addresses the \u2018methodology\u2019 of pagan antiquity\u2019s last ma\u00ad\r\njor Platonist and its greatest philosophical scholar, Simplicius of Cili\u00ad\r\ncia (AD ca 480- ca 540). What \u2018methodology\u2019 means can be best \r\nappreciated if the book\u2019s general conclusions are first summarized. [introduction p. 210]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oXKF0eqANW36ItV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":461,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"210\u2013224"}},"sort":[2008]}

Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories", 2008
By: Tarrant, Harold

Title	Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories"
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Laval théologique et philosophique
Volume	64
Issue	3
Pages	583-595
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle’s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label “anti-Aristotelian” or “polemical”, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wSO0JNPufdqhWkk

{"_index":"sire","_id":"473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":473,"authors_free":[{"id":638,"entry_id":473,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle\u2019s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label \u201canti-Aristotelian\u201d or \u201cpolemical\u201d, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wSO0JNPufdqhWkk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":473,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Laval th\u00e9ologique et philosophique","volume":"64","issue":"3","pages":"583-595"}},"sort":[2008]}

Simplicius ’ Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West, 2008
By: Michael Chase, Lloyd A. Newton (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius ’ Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories
Pages	9-30
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Michael Chase
Editor(s)	Lloyd A. Newton
Translator(s)

Michael Chase begins the volume by demonstrating the importance of Simplicius ’ commentary for two key medieval thinkers, Aquinas and al Fārābī. Due in part to Simplicius’ infl uence, and particularly his commentary on the Categories, both fi gures adopt the Neoplatonic project of reconciling Plato and Aristotle, in spite of the apparent differences between them. Interestingly, though, while both al-Fārābī and Aquinas ultimately agree on the harmony between Plato and Aristotle, they differ in that Aquinas follows Iamblichus, who makes philosophy subordinate to theology, while al-Fārābī follows Porphyry, who views philosophy as alone suffi cient for beatitude. [Introduction, by Newton]

Online Resources

Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages, 2008
By: Laks, André

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1584","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1584,"authors_free":[{"id":2779,"entry_id":1584,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Michael Chase","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":null},{"id":2780,"entry_id":1584,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lloyd A. Newton ","free_first_name":"Lloyd A. ","free_last_name":"Newton","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West"},"abstract":"Michael Chase begins the volume by demonstrating the importance\r\nof Simplicius \u2019 commentary for two key medieval thinkers, Aquinas\r\nand al F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b. Due in part to Simplicius\u2019 infl uence, and particularly his commentary on the Categories, both fi gures adopt the Neoplatonic\r\nproject of reconciling Plato and Aristotle, in spite of the apparent differences\r\nbetween them. Interestingly, though, while both al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and\r\nAquinas ultimately agree on the harmony between Plato and Aristotle,\r\nthey differ in that Aquinas follows Iamblichus, who makes philosophy\r\nsubordinate to theology, while al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b follows Porphyry, who views\r\nphilosophy as alone suffi cient for beatitude. [Introduction, by Newton]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1584,"section_of":275,"pages":"9-30","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":275,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Newton2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2008","abstract":"Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of \"doing philosophy,\" and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":275,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Title	Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2008
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	International Pre-Platonic Studies
Volume	6
Edition No.	2 (1st 1983)
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Depuis la première édition de ce livre, Diogène d'Apollonie, un des derniers "physiciens" présocratiques, longtemps dévalorisé par la réputation d' "éclectique" que H. Diels avait attachée à son nom dans un article de 1881, a suscité un regain d'intérêt. Cette seconde édition d'un ouvrage qui reste à ce jour le seul commentaire exhaustif des fragments et des témoignages de Diogène, a été revue et corrigée, mais elle prend aussi en compte, dans une série d'ajouts marqués comme tels, les travaux parus au cours des vint-cinq années écoulées. Le livre retrace l'histoire de la transmission des fragments de Diogène, analyse les positions de la critique moderne depuis l'article séminal de F. Schleiermacher (1811), et offre, pour chacun des douze fragments et des quelques trente-six témoignages, dont un nouveau classement est proposé, une analyse visant à reconstruire la logique de l'original perdu. Quatre des Notes additionnelles abordent des problèmes spécifiques, qui requéraient un traitement séparé. Une cinquième, en anglais, offre une présentation synthétique de l'interprétation ici défendue, qui situe l'importance de Diogène dans son rapport à Anaxagore et à sa doctrine de l' "intellect". [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/l5eQc4K0fWglpHt

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1367","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1367,"authors_free":[{"id":2054,"entry_id":1367,"agent_type":"person","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}}],"entry_title":"Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et t\u00e9moignages","main_title":{"title":"Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et t\u00e9moignages"},"abstract":"Depuis la premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition de ce livre, Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie, un des derniers \"physiciens\" pr\u00e9socratiques, longtemps d\u00e9valoris\u00e9 par la r\u00e9putation d' \"\u00e9clectique\" que H. Diels avait attach\u00e9e \u00e0 son nom dans un article de 1881, a suscit\u00e9 un regain d'int\u00e9r\u00eat.\r\n\r\nCette seconde \u00e9dition d'un ouvrage qui reste \u00e0 ce jour le seul commentaire exhaustif des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages de Diog\u00e8ne, a \u00e9t\u00e9 revue et corrig\u00e9e, mais elle prend aussi en compte, dans une s\u00e9rie d'ajouts marqu\u00e9s comme tels, les travaux parus au cours des vint-cinq ann\u00e9es \u00e9coul\u00e9es. Le livre retrace l'histoire de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne, analyse les positions de la critique moderne depuis l'article s\u00e9minal de F. Schleiermacher (1811), et offre, pour chacun des douze fragments et des quelques trente-six t\u00e9moignages, dont un nouveau classement est propos\u00e9, une analyse visant \u00e0 reconstruire la logique de l'original perdu.\r\n\r\nQuatre des Notes additionnelles abordent des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques, qui requ\u00e9raient un traitement s\u00e9par\u00e9. Une cinqui\u00e8me, en anglais, offre une pr\u00e9sentation synth\u00e9tique de l'interpr\u00e9tation ici d\u00e9fendue, qui situe l'importance de Diog\u00e8ne dans son rapport \u00e0 Anaxagore et \u00e0 sa doctrine de l' \"intellect\". [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/l5eQc4K0fWglpHt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1367,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"International Pre-Platonic Studies","volume":"6","edition_no":"2 (1st 1983)","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Speculating about Diogenes, 2008
By: Laks, André, Curd, Patricia (Ed.), Graham, Daniel W. (Ed.)

Title	Speculating about Diogenes
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy
Pages	353-364
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)	Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W.
Translator(s)

Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diogène d’Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels’s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes’ popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes’ depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar? Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of “material monism.” I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham’s paradoxical point); but Graham’s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/438sP1InUW9fsIE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1399","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1399,"authors_free":[{"id":2178,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2181,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":2182,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":374,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","free_first_name":"Daniel W.","free_last_name":"Graham","norm_person":{"id":374,"first_name":"Daniel W.","last_name":"Graham","full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121454800","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speculating about Diogenes","main_title":{"title":"Speculating about Diogenes"},"abstract":"Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels\u2019s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes\u2019 popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes\u2019 depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar?\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of \u201cmaterial monism.\u201d\r\n\r\nI personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham\u2019s paradoxical point); but Graham\u2019s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/438sP1InUW9fsIE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":374,"full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1399,"section_of":1400,"pages":"353-364","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1400,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy brings together leading international scholars to study the diverse figures, movements, and approaches that constitute Presocratic philosophy. In the sixth and fifth centuries bc a new kind of thinker appeared in Greek city-states, dedicated to finding the origins of the world and everything in it, using observation and reason rather than tradition and myth. We call these thinkers Presocratic philosophers, and recognize them as the first philosophers of the Western tradition, as well as the originators of scientific thinking. New textual discoveries and new approaches make a reconsideration of the Presocratics at the beginning of the twenty-first century especially timely. More than a survey of scholarship, this study presents new interpretations and evaluations of the Presocratics' accomplishments, from Thales to the sophists, from theology to science, and from pre-philosophical background to their influence on later thinkers. Many positions presented here challenge accepted wisdom and offer alternative accounts of Presocratic theories. This book includes chapters on the Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes), Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, the atomists, and the sophists. Special studies are devoted to the sources of Presocratic philosophy, oriental influences, Hippocratic medicine, cosmology, explanation, epistemology, theology, and the reception of Presocratic thought in Aristotle and other ancient authors. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXFwMNnXTnju9zT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1400,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy, 2008
By: Curd, Patricia (Ed.), Graham, Daniel W. (Ed.)

Title	The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	New York
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W.
Translator(s)

The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy brings together leading international scholars to study the diverse figures, movements, and approaches that constitute Presocratic philosophy. In the sixth and fifth centuries bc a new kind of thinker appeared in Greek city-states, dedicated to finding the origins of the world and everything in it, using observation and reason rather than tradition and myth. We call these thinkers Presocratic philosophers, and recognize them as the first philosophers of the Western tradition, as well as the originators of scientific thinking. New textual discoveries and new approaches make a reconsideration of the Presocratics at the beginning of the twenty-first century especially timely. More than a survey of scholarship, this study presents new interpretations and evaluations of the Presocratics' accomplishments, from Thales to the sophists, from theology to science, and from pre-philosophical background to their influence on later thinkers. Many positions presented here challenge accepted wisdom and offer alternative accounts of Presocratic theories. This book includes chapters on the Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes), Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, the atomists, and the sophists. Special studies are devoted to the sources of Presocratic philosophy, oriental influences, Hippocratic medicine, cosmology, explanation, epistemology, theology, and the reception of Presocratic thought in Aristotle and other ancient authors. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vobizazZn2VOG2v

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1400","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1400,"authors_free":[{"id":2179,"entry_id":1400,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":2180,"entry_id":1400,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":374,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","free_first_name":"Daniel W.","free_last_name":"Graham","norm_person":{"id":374,"first_name":"Daniel W.","last_name":"Graham","full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121454800","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy"},"abstract":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy brings together leading international scholars to study the diverse figures, movements, and approaches that constitute Presocratic philosophy. In the sixth and fifth centuries bc a new kind of thinker appeared in Greek city-states, dedicated to finding the origins of the world and everything in it, using observation and reason rather than tradition and myth. We call these thinkers Presocratic philosophers, and recognize them as the first philosophers of the Western tradition, as well as the originators of scientific thinking. New textual discoveries and new approaches make a reconsideration of the Presocratics at the beginning of the twenty-first century especially timely. More than a survey of scholarship, this study presents new interpretations and evaluations of the Presocratics' accomplishments, from Thales to the sophists, from theology to science, and from pre-philosophical background to their influence on later thinkers. Many positions presented here challenge accepted wisdom and offer alternative accounts of Presocratic theories. This book includes chapters on the Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes), Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, the atomists, and the sophists. Special studies are devoted to the sources of Presocratic philosophy, oriental influences, Hippocratic medicine, cosmology, explanation, epistemology, theology, and the reception of Presocratic thought in Aristotle and other ancient authors. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vobizazZn2VOG2v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":374,"full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1400,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2, 2008
By: Bowen, Alan C., Simplicius

Title	Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences
Volume	9
Pages	25-131
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo, which first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003), 23–58. Its aim, as before, is to provide the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius’ text that will facilitate addressing critical questions regarding the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius’ commentary, especially as it pertains to the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing. In completing this project, I have relied strictly on modern editions of Aristotle’s De caelo in presenting the lemmata in full and have relegated comments about any differences with Simplicius’ abbreviated lemmata to footnotes. After all, given that we have only Simplicius’ lemmata and not the full text of the De caelo that he used, there seems little sense in presenting Aristotle’s text in full while combining it with readings from Simplicius’ text, thereby implying a text that does not exist. At the same time, I have preserved the fact that the text quoted or paraphrased in the commentary proper sometimes differs from the text found in the lemmata. Thus, the lemmata presented here differ from those offered by Ian Mueller (2005), since he revises the received text of the De caelo in light of Simplicius’ text and removes any differences between Simplicius’ lemmata and his quotations and paraphrases. For the modern text of Aristotle’s De caelo, my primary source is Paul Moraux’s edition, as it makes extensive use of the indirect tradition in establishing Aristotle’s text. Moreover, as before, I have used Heiberg’s 1894 edition for the text of Simplicius’ commentary. However, caveat lector: this edition has recently been criticized for its reliance on the 1540 edition of the Latin translation of In De caelo made by William of Moerbeke in the 13th century. Additionally, arguments have been made for the importance of the recently discovered translation of De caelo 2 and related passages from Simplicius by Robert Grosseteste in establishing Simplicius’ text. Regrettably, there is only a proper edition thus far of Moerbeke’s translation of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 1; and, though it has certainly proved useful, we must all await the publication of the edition of Moerbeke’s version of Simplicius’ In De caelo 2. This forthcoming edition, as I understand, will account for both of Moerbeke’s translations of Simplicius’ astronomical digression in his commentary on 2.12. As for Grosseteste’s translation, though there is apparently a typescript edition by the late Fernand Bossier, it seems to be privately circulated, and so far, I have been unable to obtain a copy. Next, in interpreting the syntax and meaning of Simplicius’ Greek, I have used terminology that remains faithful to our ancient sources while also being familiar to historians of science, ensuring an accurate rendering of the technical language that Simplicius employs (and sometimes misuses) in the course of his philosophical and astronomical interpretations. As before, the line numbers in the margins of the translation indicate the line in which the first word of the corresponding line in Heiberg’s text appears. The result is not exact in terms of the actual line count, but it should suffice to allow readers to move between my translation and Simplicius’ text if they so wish. Finally, I have supplied extensive footnotes and comments to explicate the many issues that readers should understand in order to assess the nature of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.12. Readers may well disagree with my claims and arguments; however, I trust that this annotation will at least help them avoid missteps—mine included. What I have not done, however, is address the voluminous literature offering reconstructions of the system of homocentric spheres that Simplicius describes in the great astronomical digression concluding his commentary on 2.12. As in Part 1, my overriding aim is to provide only such annotation as allows readers to engage with Simplicius’ testimony directly, without obscuring it beneath layers of learned interpretation and speculation. My hope is that this approach will encourage readers to assess such reconstructions critically. Admittedly, this aim aligns with my own conclusion that such reconstructions, which trace back to Schiaparelli in the 19th century and were largely codified by Heath (1913), must today be seen as an egregious example of how scholars and their communities project their own perspectives onto the past. Moreover, this approach fits with my conviction that Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–12 is historically significant in its own right as a witness to concerns in late antiquity about the nature and foundations of astronomical knowledge. Accordingly, I have limited my remarks on these reconstructions to instances where proponents make claims about the meaning of Simplicius’ Greek or critique his interpretations. For the most part, I have set aside alternative reconstructions proposed by Maula (1974), Heglmeier (1996), Mendell (1998, 2000), and Yavetz (1998, 2001, 2003). For further details on the principles underlying this translation and the format of its presentation, I urge the reader to consult Part 1, especially pages 25–26. [introduction p. 25-27]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bK5nxtsNqCbstdI

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1480,"authors_free":[{"id":2561,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2600,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2"},"abstract":"This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo, which first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003), 23\u201358. Its aim, as before, is to provide the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius\u2019 text that will facilitate addressing critical questions regarding the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, especially as it pertains to the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing.\r\n\r\nIn completing this project, I have relied strictly on modern editions of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo in presenting the lemmata in full and have relegated comments about any differences with Simplicius\u2019 abbreviated lemmata to footnotes. After all, given that we have only Simplicius\u2019 lemmata and not the full text of the De caelo that he used, there seems little sense in presenting Aristotle\u2019s text in full while combining it with readings from Simplicius\u2019 text, thereby implying a text that does not exist. At the same time, I have preserved the fact that the text quoted or paraphrased in the commentary proper sometimes differs from the text found in the lemmata. Thus, the lemmata presented here differ from those offered by Ian Mueller (2005), since he revises the received text of the De caelo in light of Simplicius\u2019 text and removes any differences between Simplicius\u2019 lemmata and his quotations and paraphrases.\r\n\r\nFor the modern text of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo, my primary source is Paul Moraux\u2019s edition, as it makes extensive use of the indirect tradition in establishing Aristotle\u2019s text. Moreover, as before, I have used Heiberg\u2019s 1894 edition for the text of Simplicius\u2019 commentary. However, caveat lector: this edition has recently been criticized for its reliance on the 1540 edition of the Latin translation of In De caelo made by William of Moerbeke in the 13th century. Additionally, arguments have been made for the importance of the recently discovered translation of De caelo 2 and related passages from Simplicius by Robert Grosseteste in establishing Simplicius\u2019 text. Regrettably, there is only a proper edition thus far of Moerbeke\u2019s translation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 1; and, though it has certainly proved useful, we must all await the publication of the edition of Moerbeke\u2019s version of Simplicius\u2019 In De caelo 2. This forthcoming edition, as I understand, will account for both of Moerbeke\u2019s translations of Simplicius\u2019 astronomical digression in his commentary on 2.12.\r\n\r\nAs for Grosseteste\u2019s translation, though there is apparently a typescript edition by the late Fernand Bossier, it seems to be privately circulated, and so far, I have been unable to obtain a copy.\r\n\r\nNext, in interpreting the syntax and meaning of Simplicius\u2019 Greek, I have used terminology that remains faithful to our ancient sources while also being familiar to historians of science, ensuring an accurate rendering of the technical language that Simplicius employs (and sometimes misuses) in the course of his philosophical and astronomical interpretations. As before, the line numbers in the margins of the translation indicate the line in which the first word of the corresponding line in Heiberg\u2019s text appears. The result is not exact in terms of the actual line count, but it should suffice to allow readers to move between my translation and Simplicius\u2019 text if they so wish.\r\n\r\nFinally, I have supplied extensive footnotes and comments to explicate the many issues that readers should understand in order to assess the nature of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.12. Readers may well disagree with my claims and arguments; however, I trust that this annotation will at least help them avoid missteps\u2014mine included. What I have not done, however, is address the voluminous literature offering reconstructions of the system of homocentric spheres that Simplicius describes in the great astronomical digression concluding his commentary on 2.12.\r\n\r\nAs in Part 1, my overriding aim is to provide only such annotation as allows readers to engage with Simplicius\u2019 testimony directly, without obscuring it beneath layers of learned interpretation and speculation. My hope is that this approach will encourage readers to assess such reconstructions critically. Admittedly, this aim aligns with my own conclusion that such reconstructions, which trace back to Schiaparelli in the 19th century and were largely codified by Heath (1913), must today be seen as an egregious example of how scholars and their communities project their own perspectives onto the past.\r\n\r\nMoreover, this approach fits with my conviction that Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.10\u201312 is historically significant in its own right as a witness to concerns in late antiquity about the nature and foundations of astronomical knowledge. Accordingly, I have limited my remarks on these reconstructions to instances where proponents make claims about the meaning of Simplicius\u2019 Greek or critique his interpretations. For the most part, I have set aside alternative reconstructions proposed by Maula (1974), Heglmeier (1996), Mendell (1998, 2000), and Yavetz (1998, 2001, 2003).\r\n\r\nFor further details on the principles underlying this translation and the format of its presentation, I urge the reader to consult Part 1, especially pages 25\u201326. [introduction p. 25-27]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bK5nxtsNqCbstdI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"25-131"}},"sort":[2008]}

Remarque complémentaire à mon article “Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathémathiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen?”, 2007
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Remarque complémentaire à mon article “Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathémathiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen?”
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	1
Pages	263-269
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Concerning the book by R. Arnzen Abū l-‘Abbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?) Simplicius’ Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I, the present paper off ers a survey of the way the late Neoplatonists used to conceive and compose their commentaries. Far from trying to be original, each commentary is largely based on the works of predecessors. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MJR57V7OQzq7spB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1179","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1179,"authors_free":[{"id":1753,"entry_id":1179,"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":"Remarque compl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mon article \u201cDans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9mathiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Remarque compl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mon article \u201cDans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9mathiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?\u201d"},"abstract":"Concerning the book by R. Arnzen Ab\u016b l-\u2018Abb\u0101s an-Nayr\u012bz\u012bs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?) Simplicius\u2019 Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I, the present paper off ers a survey of the way the late Neoplatonists used to conceive and compose their commentaries. Far from trying to be original, each commentary is largely based on the works of predecessors. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MJR57V7OQzq7spB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1179,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"263-269"}},"sort":[2007]}

Aperçu de la réception de la doctrine stoïcienne du mélange total dans le néoplatonisme après Plotin, 2007
By: Cohen, Daniel

Title	Aperçu de la réception de la doctrine stoïcienne du mélange total dans le néoplatonisme après Plotin
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	25
Issue	2
Pages	67-100
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Cohen, Daniel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aux niveaux les plus inférieurs, où prédomine la multiplicité et la division, le mélange peut se manifester selon deux modes : Ou bien les composants d'une totalité préservent leur identité au détriment de l'unité du produit du mélange (il ne s'agit alors pas à proprement parler d'un mélange mais plutôt d'un « assemblage » dans lequel les éléments sont simplement juxtaposés : il s'agit plutôt de la παράθεσις stoïcienne ou de la σύνθεσις d'Aristote). Ou bien le produit du mélange forme une véritable totalité unifiée, mais alors cette unité est réalisée au détriment de l'identité des composantes, qui s'altèrent et se confondent pour former une entité nouvelle (il s'agit alors de la σύγχυσις stoïcienne ou du véritable mélange au sens aristotélicien). Au niveau des réalités immatérielles, c'est sur le modèle stoïcien du mélange total que les Néoplatoniciens envisagent cette paradoxale « fusion sans confusion » qui unifie toute multiplicité sur le mode de la totalité antérieure à la dispersion de ses parties au sein de la matière. Dans la mesure où les jugements que les Néoplatoniciens portent sur l'héritage philosophique des doctrines anciennes se présentent la plupart du temps comme une confrontation avec la perspective qui est supposée être celle de Platon, on peut dire que la réception néoplatonicienne des physiques du mélange d'Aristote et des Stoïciens aboutit à la conclusion suivante : Les Stoïciens se trompent parce qu'ils rendent les causes immanentes et donc mélangées à la matière. Aristote a raison, mais il se limite à rendre compte des phénomènes sensibles. Aristote et les Stoïciens font partie de ce que Proclus qualifiera de « crème des disputeurs qui, pour avoir observé quelque petite portion de la nature, pensent pouvoir déchirer Platon ». Ce n'est donc pas le moindre des paradoxes si les représentants du Néoplatonisme, après avoir rejeté les lois de la physique aristotélicienne comme n'ayant de validité qu'au seul niveau sensible, et après avoir vigoureusement critiqué le matérialisme stoïcien, ont transposé la donnée la plus fondamentale de la physique stoïcienne — celle qui permettait aux Stoïciens de justifier l'immanence intégrale de la causalité divine (et donc le matérialisme corporaliste le plus radical) — aux niveaux les plus élevés, comme régissant les relations entre les réalités immatérielles et incorporelles. Comme l'a bien montré Pierre Hadot, cette transfiguration doctrinale, qui deviendra typique de la démarche néoplatonicienne, a été amorcée dans le cadre de la synthèse réalisée par Porphyre. En ce sens, écrivait-il, « c'est précisément une des caractéristiques de la doctrine porphyrienne (...) de montrer que le Stoïcisme n'est vrai que dans la transposition néoplatonicienne, la physique stoïcienne devenant ainsi une métaphysique », de sorte que « la théorie des mélanges élaborée par les Stoïciens ne découvre sa vérité que sur le plan intelligible ». Nous avons vu cependant que cette vérité se découvre avant même d'envisager le mélange proprement noétique, Porphyre lui-même ayant déjà fait intervenir la krasis stoïcienne dans le contexte d'un exposé sur l'embryologie, et les Néoplatoniciens ultérieurs dans cet ordre intermédiaire, négligé par Plotin, où se tiennent les « corps immatériels » non qualifiés. La conception stoïcienne du mélange total s'est finalement imposée au sein de la métaphysique néoplatonicienne au prix d'un double réaménagement doctrinal, ayant eu pour résultat : La synthèse de la doctrine stoïcienne de l'interpénétration totale sans confusion avec les élaborations aristotéliciennes de l'acte et de la puissance. La transposition du domaine des réalités matérielles à celui des réalités corporelles non encore engagées dans la matière première. [conclusion p. 99-100]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/T9kWS2QRZ2oeq7V

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1273","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1273,"authors_free":[{"id":1863,"entry_id":1273,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":51,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cohen, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Cohen","norm_person":{"id":51,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Cohen","full_name":"Cohen, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1024876659","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","main_title":{"title":"Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"},"abstract":"Aux niveaux les plus inf\u00e9rieurs, o\u00f9 pr\u00e9domine la multiplicit\u00e9 et la division, le m\u00e9lange peut se manifester selon deux modes :\r\n\r\n Ou bien les composants d'une totalit\u00e9 pr\u00e9servent leur identit\u00e9 au d\u00e9triment de l'unit\u00e9 du produit du m\u00e9lange (il ne s'agit alors pas \u00e0 proprement parler d'un m\u00e9lange mais plut\u00f4t d'un \u00ab assemblage \u00bb dans lequel les \u00e9l\u00e9ments sont simplement juxtapos\u00e9s : il s'agit plut\u00f4t de la \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 sto\u00efcienne ou de la \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 d'Aristote).\r\n Ou bien le produit du m\u00e9lange forme une v\u00e9ritable totalit\u00e9 unifi\u00e9e, mais alors cette unit\u00e9 est r\u00e9alis\u00e9e au d\u00e9triment de l'identit\u00e9 des composantes, qui s'alt\u00e8rent et se confondent pour former une entit\u00e9 nouvelle (il s'agit alors de la \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 sto\u00efcienne ou du v\u00e9ritable m\u00e9lange au sens aristot\u00e9licien).\r\n\r\nAu niveau des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s immat\u00e9rielles, c'est sur le mod\u00e8le sto\u00efcien du m\u00e9lange total que les N\u00e9oplatoniciens envisagent cette paradoxale \u00ab fusion sans confusion \u00bb qui unifie toute multiplicit\u00e9 sur le mode de la totalit\u00e9 ant\u00e9rieure \u00e0 la dispersion de ses parties au sein de la mati\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nDans la mesure o\u00f9 les jugements que les N\u00e9oplatoniciens portent sur l'h\u00e9ritage philosophique des doctrines anciennes se pr\u00e9sentent la plupart du temps comme une confrontation avec la perspective qui est suppos\u00e9e \u00eatre celle de Platon, on peut dire que la r\u00e9ception n\u00e9oplatonicienne des physiques du m\u00e9lange d'Aristote et des Sto\u00efciens aboutit \u00e0 la conclusion suivante :\r\n\r\n Les Sto\u00efciens se trompent parce qu'ils rendent les causes immanentes et donc m\u00e9lang\u00e9es \u00e0 la mati\u00e8re.\r\n Aristote a raison, mais il se limite \u00e0 rendre compte des ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes sensibles.\r\n\r\nAristote et les Sto\u00efciens font partie de ce que Proclus qualifiera de \u00ab cr\u00e8me des disputeurs qui, pour avoir observ\u00e9 quelque petite portion de la nature, pensent pouvoir d\u00e9chirer Platon \u00bb.\r\n\r\nCe n'est donc pas le moindre des paradoxes si les repr\u00e9sentants du N\u00e9oplatonisme, apr\u00e8s avoir rejet\u00e9 les lois de la physique aristot\u00e9licienne comme n'ayant de validit\u00e9 qu'au seul niveau sensible, et apr\u00e8s avoir vigoureusement critiqu\u00e9 le mat\u00e9rialisme sto\u00efcien, ont transpos\u00e9 la donn\u00e9e la plus fondamentale de la physique sto\u00efcienne \u2014 celle qui permettait aux Sto\u00efciens de justifier l'immanence int\u00e9grale de la causalit\u00e9 divine (et donc le mat\u00e9rialisme corporaliste le plus radical) \u2014 aux niveaux les plus \u00e9lev\u00e9s, comme r\u00e9gissant les relations entre les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s immat\u00e9rielles et incorporelles.\r\n\r\nComme l'a bien montr\u00e9 Pierre Hadot, cette transfiguration doctrinale, qui deviendra typique de la d\u00e9marche n\u00e9oplatonicienne, a \u00e9t\u00e9 amorc\u00e9e dans le cadre de la synth\u00e8se r\u00e9alis\u00e9e par Porphyre. En ce sens, \u00e9crivait-il, \u00ab c'est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment une des caract\u00e9ristiques de la doctrine porphyrienne (...) de montrer que le Sto\u00efcisme n'est vrai que dans la transposition n\u00e9oplatonicienne, la physique sto\u00efcienne devenant ainsi une m\u00e9taphysique \u00bb, de sorte que \u00ab la th\u00e9orie des m\u00e9langes \u00e9labor\u00e9e par les Sto\u00efciens ne d\u00e9couvre sa v\u00e9rit\u00e9 que sur le plan intelligible \u00bb.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu cependant que cette v\u00e9rit\u00e9 se d\u00e9couvre avant m\u00eame d'envisager le m\u00e9lange proprement no\u00e9tique, Porphyre lui-m\u00eame ayant d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait intervenir la krasis sto\u00efcienne dans le contexte d'un expos\u00e9 sur l'embryologie, et les N\u00e9oplatoniciens ult\u00e9rieurs dans cet ordre interm\u00e9diaire, n\u00e9glig\u00e9 par Plotin, o\u00f9 se tiennent les \u00ab corps immat\u00e9riels \u00bb non qualifi\u00e9s.\r\n\r\nLa conception sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total s'est finalement impos\u00e9e au sein de la m\u00e9taphysique n\u00e9oplatonicienne au prix d'un double r\u00e9am\u00e9nagement doctrinal, ayant eu pour r\u00e9sultat :\r\n\r\n La synth\u00e8se de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne de l'interp\u00e9n\u00e9tration totale sans confusion avec les \u00e9laborations aristot\u00e9liciennes de l'acte et de la puissance.\r\n La transposition du domaine des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s mat\u00e9rielles \u00e0 celui des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s corporelles non encore engag\u00e9es dans la mati\u00e8re premi\u00e8re. [conclusion p. 99-100]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T9kWS2QRZ2oeq7V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":51,"full_name":"Cohen, Daniel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1273,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"25 ","issue":"2","pages":"67-100"}},"sort":[2007]}

Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein Überblick mit ausgewählten Literaturangaben, 2007
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein Überblick mit ausgewählten Literaturangaben
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2007
Journal	Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie
Volume	32
Issue	1
Pages	51-79
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Ein typisches Beispiel für einen systematisch anspruchsvoll argumentierenden Kommentar, auf den viele der hier genannten Merkmale zutreffen, ist der De anima-Kommentar des Neuplatonikers Priskian von Lydien, eines Zeitgenossen und Bekannten des Damaskios und Simplikios um 530. Der Autor setzt es sich zu Beginn seines Kommentars ausdrücklich zum Ziel, sich bei der Auslegung des aristotelischen Textes und der Klärung der hierbei bestehenden Zweifel nach Möglichkeit an die sachliche Wahrheit (alētheia tōn pragmatōn) zu halten. Dabei will er diese nicht einfach aus dem Text ableiten, sondern orientiert sich bewusst an der Seelenlehre Jamblichs (3. Jh.), des eigentlichen Begründers des spätneuplatonischen Systems (1, 18–20). Diese Zugangsweise stellt den Kommentator freilich vor schwierige inhaltliche Probleme: Zum einen gilt es, Aristoteles’ Seelenlehre richtig zu verstehen, die davon ausgeht, dass die Seele schlichtweg das Lebensprinzip des menschlichen Körpers und eben dadurch definiert ist. Andererseits muss Priskian den Intentionen Jamblichs gerecht werden, dessen Neuplatonismus der Transzendenz auch des menschlichen Geistes und damit einer Art Leib-Seele-Dualismus verpflichtet bleibt. Um beiden Ansprüchen genügen zu können, entwickelt der Kommentator eine komplexe Theorie der menschlichen Seele, die das neuplatonische Menschenbild nicht unwesentlich variiert und verfeinert: Erstens führt Priskian in den für Aristoteles’ Seelenlehre zentralen Begriff der Entelechie bzw. Formursache eine Unterscheidung zwischen einer Formursächlichkeit als Gestaltprinzip des leib-seelischen Wesens und einer Formursächlichkeit als dessen Bewegungsprinzip ein (4,12–5,5). Das letztere Prinzip findet Priskian in Aristoteles’ Aussage, der Geist könne möglicherweise auch so im Körper sein wie ein Schiffer auf einem Schiff (De anima II 1, 413a 6–9). Für Priskian gibt es die Unterschiedenheit zwischen formender und bewegender Entelechie jedoch nicht nur (und nicht in erster Linie, wie noch deutlich werden wird) auf der Ebene der rationalen Seele bzw. des menschlichen Nous, sondern auch auf den Seelenstufen des Vegetativen und des Sensitiven, wobei beim Vegetativen der formende Charakter stark überwiegt. Für die Ebene des Nous reicht diese Differenzierung jedoch nicht aus; denn auch ein Bewegungsprinzip ist nach neuplatonischer Vorstellung als solches notwendig mit dem Körper verbunden, während es für den aristotelischen Nous ganz unangemessen ist, dass er überhaupt in irgendeiner notwendigen Verbindung zum Körper steht (227,6–32). Priskian antwortet mit einer feingliedrigen Differenzierung des Nous-Begriffs, wobei die Einheit und Vielheit der verschiedenen unterschiedenen Stufen mit Hilfe der neuplatonischen Idee einer triadischen Dynamik des Geistigen verstanden werden muss. Grundlegend ist der Gedanke, dass der Nous im Menschen, verstanden als sein alltägliches, gleichsam empirisches Selbst, sich entweder ganz von der Verbindung mit Körperlichem lösen und sich dem bloßen Denken zuwenden oder aber durch die eingegangene Verbindung mit dem Körper nur potentiell zu einem derartigen Denken befähigt sein kann. Priskian schildert diesen Gegensatz jedoch nicht nur, wie andere Neuplatoniker, als eine bloße Wahlmöglichkeit der rationalen Seele zwischen einer Wendung nach oben – zum Geistigen – oder nach unten – zum Körperlichen –, sondern er stellt ihn als eine Zuwendung der Seele zu ihrem eigentlichen, idealen Selbst dar, das als transzendentales Subjekt ihres Denkens zu gelten hat und damit das Denken eigentlich erst „bewirkt“ (das ist seine Interpretation des aristotelischen aktiven Geistes). Dieses ideale Selbst ist aber nicht, wie Plotin annimmt, völlig konstant, sondern es entwickelt und verändert sich zusammen mit der Ebene unseres alltäglichen Denkens, das erst durch eine Rückwendung zum Geistigen auch eine volle Wiederherstellung seines transzendentalen Selbst bewirken kann (220,2–25; 240,2–241,26). Unser Geist ist daher „von sich selbst entfremdet“ (allotriōthen heautou; 223,26), und unser Leben eine dauerhafte Suche nach der Wiedergewinnung der Einheit von empirischem und idealem Selbst. Diese kann erreicht werden durch eine Selbsterkenntnis, bei der sich das empirische Selbst als sein ideales Selbst erkennt und zu diesem wird; um diesen Prozess zu erklären, wendet Priskian die neuplatonische Idee einer geistigen Bewegung aus Bleiben, Hervorgehen und Zurückkehren (monē, prohodos, epistrophē) auf den menschlichen Geist an, was hier nicht im Detail nachvollzogen werden kann. Dieser sehr grobe Überblick über einen ebenso scharfsinnigen wie schwierigen und voraussetzungsreichen Text zeigt in besonders extremer Form, mit welchen systematischen Interessen nicht wenige Kommentatoren an ihre Texte herantraten; häufig lässt sich im kommentierten Text allenfalls der Anlass erkennen, der den Kommentator dazu führt, seine eigenen systematischen Fragen am autoritativ verstandenen Vorlagetext abzuhandeln, was entweder zu einem besseren Verständnis des Textes oder – wie im gerade diskutierten Fall – zu einer Bereicherung der zeitgenössischen Diskussion führt, von der auch der heutige Leser profitieren kann, wenn er bereit ist, den häufig mühsamen Weg zum Verständnis eines Kommentators zu gehen. [introduction p. 52-53]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pSf0FMkBh5xKMAw

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1085","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1085,"authors_free":[{"id":1641,"entry_id":1085,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben","main_title":{"title":"Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben"},"abstract":"Ein typisches Beispiel f\u00fcr einen systematisch anspruchsvoll argumentierenden Kommentar, auf den viele der hier genannten Merkmale zutreffen, ist der De anima-Kommentar des Neuplatonikers Priskian von Lydien, eines Zeitgenossen und Bekannten des Damaskios und Simplikios um 530. Der Autor setzt es sich zu Beginn seines Kommentars ausdr\u00fccklich zum Ziel, sich bei der Auslegung des aristotelischen Textes und der Kl\u00e4rung der hierbei bestehenden Zweifel nach M\u00f6glichkeit an die sachliche Wahrheit (al\u0113theia t\u014dn pragmat\u014dn) zu halten. Dabei will er diese nicht einfach aus dem Text ableiten, sondern orientiert sich bewusst an der Seelenlehre Jamblichs (3. Jh.), des eigentlichen Begr\u00fcnders des sp\u00e4tneuplatonischen Systems (1, 18\u201320).\r\n\r\nDiese Zugangsweise stellt den Kommentator freilich vor schwierige inhaltliche Probleme: Zum einen gilt es, Aristoteles\u2019 Seelenlehre richtig zu verstehen, die davon ausgeht, dass die Seele schlichtweg das Lebensprinzip des menschlichen K\u00f6rpers und eben dadurch definiert ist. Andererseits muss Priskian den Intentionen Jamblichs gerecht werden, dessen Neuplatonismus der Transzendenz auch des menschlichen Geistes und damit einer Art Leib-Seele-Dualismus verpflichtet bleibt.\r\n\r\nUm beiden Anspr\u00fcchen gen\u00fcgen zu k\u00f6nnen, entwickelt der Kommentator eine komplexe Theorie der menschlichen Seele, die das neuplatonische Menschenbild nicht unwesentlich variiert und verfeinert: Erstens f\u00fchrt Priskian in den f\u00fcr Aristoteles\u2019 Seelenlehre zentralen Begriff der Entelechie bzw. Formursache eine Unterscheidung zwischen einer Formurs\u00e4chlichkeit als Gestaltprinzip des leib-seelischen Wesens und einer Formurs\u00e4chlichkeit als dessen Bewegungsprinzip ein (4,12\u20135,5). Das letztere Prinzip findet Priskian in Aristoteles\u2019 Aussage, der Geist k\u00f6nne m\u00f6glicherweise auch so im K\u00f6rper sein wie ein Schiffer auf einem Schiff (De anima II 1, 413a 6\u20139).\r\n\r\nF\u00fcr Priskian gibt es die Unterschiedenheit zwischen formender und bewegender Entelechie jedoch nicht nur (und nicht in erster Linie, wie noch deutlich werden wird) auf der Ebene der rationalen Seele bzw. des menschlichen Nous, sondern auch auf den Seelenstufen des Vegetativen und des Sensitiven, wobei beim Vegetativen der formende Charakter stark \u00fcberwiegt.\r\n\r\nF\u00fcr die Ebene des Nous reicht diese Differenzierung jedoch nicht aus; denn auch ein Bewegungsprinzip ist nach neuplatonischer Vorstellung als solches notwendig mit dem K\u00f6rper verbunden, w\u00e4hrend es f\u00fcr den aristotelischen Nous ganz unangemessen ist, dass er \u00fcberhaupt in irgendeiner notwendigen Verbindung zum K\u00f6rper steht (227,6\u201332). Priskian antwortet mit einer feingliedrigen Differenzierung des Nous-Begriffs, wobei die Einheit und Vielheit der verschiedenen unterschiedenen Stufen mit Hilfe der neuplatonischen Idee einer triadischen Dynamik des Geistigen verstanden werden muss.\r\n\r\nGrundlegend ist der Gedanke, dass der Nous im Menschen, verstanden als sein allt\u00e4gliches, gleichsam empirisches Selbst, sich entweder ganz von der Verbindung mit K\u00f6rperlichem l\u00f6sen und sich dem blo\u00dfen Denken zuwenden oder aber durch die eingegangene Verbindung mit dem K\u00f6rper nur potentiell zu einem derartigen Denken bef\u00e4higt sein kann. Priskian schildert diesen Gegensatz jedoch nicht nur, wie andere Neuplatoniker, als eine blo\u00dfe Wahlm\u00f6glichkeit der rationalen Seele zwischen einer Wendung nach oben \u2013 zum Geistigen \u2013 oder nach unten \u2013 zum K\u00f6rperlichen \u2013, sondern er stellt ihn als eine Zuwendung der Seele zu ihrem eigentlichen, idealen Selbst dar, das als transzendentales Subjekt ihres Denkens zu gelten hat und damit das Denken eigentlich erst \u201ebewirkt\u201c (das ist seine Interpretation des aristotelischen aktiven Geistes).\r\n\r\nDieses ideale Selbst ist aber nicht, wie Plotin annimmt, v\u00f6llig konstant, sondern es entwickelt und ver\u00e4ndert sich zusammen mit der Ebene unseres allt\u00e4glichen Denkens, das erst durch eine R\u00fcckwendung zum Geistigen auch eine volle Wiederherstellung seines transzendentalen Selbst bewirken kann (220,2\u201325; 240,2\u2013241,26). Unser Geist ist daher \u201evon sich selbst entfremdet\u201c (allotri\u014dthen heautou; 223,26), und unser Leben eine dauerhafte Suche nach der Wiedergewinnung der Einheit von empirischem und idealem Selbst.\r\n\r\nDiese kann erreicht werden durch eine Selbsterkenntnis, bei der sich das empirische Selbst als sein ideales Selbst erkennt und zu diesem wird; um diesen Prozess zu erkl\u00e4ren, wendet Priskian die neuplatonische Idee einer geistigen Bewegung aus Bleiben, Hervorgehen und Zur\u00fcckkehren (mon\u0113, prohodos, epistroph\u0113) auf den menschlichen Geist an, was hier nicht im Detail nachvollzogen werden kann.\r\n\r\nDieser sehr grobe \u00dcberblick \u00fcber einen ebenso scharfsinnigen wie schwierigen und voraussetzungsreichen Text zeigt in besonders extremer Form, mit welchen systematischen Interessen nicht wenige Kommentatoren an ihre Texte herantraten; h\u00e4ufig l\u00e4sst sich im kommentierten Text allenfalls der Anlass erkennen, der den Kommentator dazu f\u00fchrt, seine eigenen systematischen Fragen am autoritativ verstandenen Vorlagetext abzuhandeln, was entweder zu einem besseren Verst\u00e4ndnis des Textes oder \u2013 wie im gerade diskutierten Fall \u2013 zu einer Bereicherung der zeitgen\u00f6ssischen Diskussion f\u00fchrt, von der auch der heutige Leser profitieren kann, wenn er bereit ist, den h\u00e4ufig m\u00fchsamen Weg zum Verst\u00e4ndnis eines Kommentators zu gehen. [introduction p. 52-53]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pSf0FMkBh5xKMAw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1085,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Allgemeine Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Philosophie","volume":"32","issue":"1","pages":"51-79"}},"sort":[2007]}

Semence, vertu formatrice et intellect agent chez Nicolò Leoniceno entre la tradition arabo-latine et la renaissance des commentateurs grecs, 2007
By: Hiro, Harai

Title	Semence, vertu formatrice et intellect agent chez Nicolò Leoniceno entre la tradition arabo-latine et la renaissance des commentateurs grecs
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	Early Science and Medicine
Volume	12
Issue	2
Pages	134-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hiro, Harai
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The treatise On Formative Power (Venice, 1506) of Ferrara's emblematic medical humanist, Nicolo Leoniceno (1428-1524), is the one of the first embryological monographs of the Renaissance. It shows, at the same time, the continuity of medi eval Arabo-Latin tradition and the new elements brought by Renaissance medical humanism, namely through the use of the ancient Greek commentators of Aristotle like Simplicius. Thus this treatise stands at the crossroad of these two currents. The present study analyses the range of Leoniceno's philosophical discussion, determines its exact sources and brings to light premises for the early modern development of the concept of formative force, which will end up in the theory of "plastic nature" at the heart of the Scientific Revolution. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Bqb94gvDLPcl42S

{"_index":"sire","_id":"806","_score":null,"_source":{"id":806,"authors_free":[{"id":1193,"entry_id":806,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":179,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hiro, Harai","free_first_name":"Harai","free_last_name":"Hiro","norm_person":{"id":179,"first_name":"Harai","last_name":"Hiro","full_name":"Hiro, Harai","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078284075","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Semence, vertu formatrice et intellect agent chez Nicol\u00f2 Leoniceno entre la tradition arabo-latine et la renaissance des commentateurs grecs","main_title":{"title":"Semence, vertu formatrice et intellect agent chez Nicol\u00f2 Leoniceno entre la tradition arabo-latine et la renaissance des commentateurs grecs"},"abstract":"The treatise On Formative Power (Venice, 1506) of Ferrara's emblematic medical humanist, Nicolo Leoniceno (1428-1524), is the one of the first embryological monographs of the Renaissance. It shows, at the same time, the continuity of medi eval Arabo-Latin tradition and the new elements brought by Renaissance medical humanism, namely through the use of the ancient Greek commentators of Aristotle like Simplicius. Thus this treatise stands at the crossroad of these two currents. The present study analyses the range of Leoniceno's philosophical discussion, determines its exact sources and brings to light premises for the early modern development of the concept of formative force, which will end up in the theory of \"plastic nature\" at the heart of the Scientific Revolution. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Bqb94gvDLPcl42S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":179,"full_name":"Hiro, Harai","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":806,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Early Science and Medicine","volume":"12","issue":"2","pages":"134-165"}},"sort":[2007]}

From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary, 2007
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2007
Journal	Poetics Today
Volume	28
Issue	2
Pages	247–281
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest allegorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown “running commentary” in the Platonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9evl1bXvfOTYX0r

{"_index":"sire","_id":"968","_score":null,"_source":{"id":968,"authors_free":[{"id":1455,"entry_id":968,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary","main_title":{"title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary"},"abstract":"Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest alle\u00adgorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown \u201crunning commentary\u201d in the Pla\u00adtonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9evl1bXvfOTYX0r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":968,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Poetics Today","volume":"28","issue":"2","pages":"247\u2013281"}},"sort":[2007]}

Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie, 2007
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2007
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This book is the first study of the ontological system of Alexander of Aphrodisias (floruit c. 200 AD), famous for his commentaries on the works of Aristotle. By drawing not only on the entire known corpus of the commentator's works, but also on numerous new Greek and Arabic sources, Marwan Rashed aimsat defining Alexander’s place in the history of metaphysics. Alexander’s attempt to substantiate the objectivity of the Aristotelian form draws down the curtain on the phase of the Hellenistic peripatos, at the same time marking the beginning of medieval Aristotelianism.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UWvfc21ygCYe7ts

{"_index":"sire","_id":"9","_score":null,"_source":{"id":9,"authors_free":[{"id":9,"entry_id":9,"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":"Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie","main_title":{"title":"Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie"},"abstract":"This book is the first study of the ontological system of Alexander of Aphrodisias (floruit c. 200 AD), famous for his commentaries on the works of Aristotle. By drawing not only on the entire known corpus of the commentator's works, but also on numerous new Greek and Arabic sources, Marwan Rashed aimsat defining Alexander\u2019s place in the history of metaphysics. Alexander\u2019s attempt to substantiate the objectivity of the Aristotelian form draws down the curtain on the phase of the Hellenistic peripatos, at the same time marking the beginning of medieval Aristotelianism.","btype":1,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UWvfc21ygCYe7ts","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":9,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New \tYork","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2007]}

Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste. Contribution à l’étude de l’exégèse néoplatonicienne, 2007
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste. Contribution à l’étude de l’exégèse néoplatonicienne
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2007
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Klincksieck
Series	Etudes & commentaires
Volume	108
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Ce livre explore la methode et l'interpretation du Sophiste par Simplicius, en tant qu'elles illustrent l'exegese neoplatonicienne tardive et entrainent une restauration de la lettre du texte. A partir d'un corpus issu des commentaires (largement inedit en francais), Marc-Antoine Gavray reconstruit la lecture de Simplicius et la met en regard avec celles de Plotin, de Proclus et de Damascius. Il en ressort une exegese attentive, digne d'accompagner le lecteur moderne dans sa comprehension de Platon. [a.a]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/L6skhmRNm3vvMA0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"30","_score":null,"_source":{"id":30,"authors_free":[{"id":34,"entry_id":30,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste. Contribution \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste. Contribution \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne"},"abstract":"Ce livre explore la methode et l'interpretation du Sophiste par Simplicius, en tant qu'elles illustrent l'exegese neoplatonicienne tardive et entrainent une restauration de la lettre du texte. A partir d'un corpus issu des commentaires (largement inedit en francais), Marc-Antoine Gavray reconstruit la lecture de Simplicius et la met en regard avec celles de Plotin, de Proclus et de Damascius. Il en ressort une exegese attentive, digne d'accompagner le lecteur moderne dans sa comprehension de Platon. [a.a]","btype":1,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/L6skhmRNm3vvMA0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":30,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Klincksieck","series":"Etudes & commentaires","volume":"108","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2007]}

The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche, 2007
By: D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)

Title	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2007
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia Antiqua
Volume	107
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Adnom07DPUlmcQv

{"_index":"sire","_id":"37","_score":null,"_source":{"id":37,"authors_free":[{"id":44,"entry_id":37,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","main_title":{"title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche"},"abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","btype":4,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2007]}

Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication, 2007
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo

Title	Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2007
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	18
Pages	123-140
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Porphyry’s interpretation of Aristotle’s theories of genus and substantial predication is based on two related assumptions: That a clear separation exists between logic and metaphysics (= doctrine of transcendent realities). That there is a close relation between logic and physics. Since Porphyry’s physics is part of his ontology, logic and ontology (i.e., the logic and the ontology of the physical world) stand in close relation with each other. Porphyry only makes very partial references to metaphysics in his logical works. What I have argued is that Porphyry’s conception of genus in the Isagoge reflects the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings, since Porphyry presents his genus as an aph’ henos hierarchical relation. This, on the other hand, does not imply that Porphyry’s treatment of genus in the Isagoge refers to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry carefully introduces a doctrine in the Isagoge, the complete significance of which emerges in a different context: the ‘Porphyrean tree’ is thus a mere analogon of the Platonic hierarchy of beings. The presence of physical doctrines is far more essential to Porphyry’s views of universals and predication. Physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms provide real correlates for Porphyry’s universal predicates: Aristotle’s substantial predication ‘mirrors’ the relation between a particular and its immanent form. Physical forms are not outside the scope of logic; rather, they provide the ‘real’ foundation for Porphyry’s views on predication. Such a foundation is presented in an introductory way in Porphyry’s logical writings and is only made explicit in his more ‘systematic’ works. Iamblichus’ attitude is different in that his Platonizing of Aristotle’s logic is more direct and pervasive. Consequently, Iamblichus offers a Platonizing reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and to the metaphysical relation of participation. Iamblichus is well aware that an ante rem form cannot be a universal synonymous predicate of its particular instantiations, and he conceives of substantial predication as a paronymous relation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals. [conclusion p. 17-18]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sra714DdTLHJIcS

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1289","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1289,"authors_free":[{"id":1878,"entry_id":1289,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication"},"abstract":"Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s theories of genus and substantial predication is based on two related assumptions:\r\n\r\n That a clear separation exists between logic and metaphysics (= doctrine of transcendent realities).\r\n That there is a close relation between logic and physics.\r\n\r\nSince Porphyry\u2019s physics is part of his ontology, logic and ontology (i.e., the logic and the ontology of the physical world) stand in close relation with each other. Porphyry only makes very partial references to metaphysics in his logical works. What I have argued is that Porphyry\u2019s conception of genus in the Isagoge reflects the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings, since Porphyry presents his genus as an aph\u2019 henos hierarchical relation. This, on the other hand, does not imply that Porphyry\u2019s treatment of genus in the Isagoge refers to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry carefully introduces a doctrine in the Isagoge, the complete significance of which emerges in a different context: the \u2018Porphyrean tree\u2019 is thus a mere analogon of the Platonic hierarchy of beings.\r\n\r\nThe presence of physical doctrines is far more essential to Porphyry\u2019s views of universals and predication. Physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms provide real correlates for Porphyry\u2019s universal predicates: Aristotle\u2019s substantial predication \u2018mirrors\u2019 the relation between a particular and its immanent form. Physical forms are not outside the scope of logic; rather, they provide the \u2018real\u2019 foundation for Porphyry\u2019s views on predication. Such a foundation is presented in an introductory way in Porphyry\u2019s logical writings and is only made explicit in his more \u2018systematic\u2019 works.\r\n\r\nIamblichus\u2019 attitude is different in that his Platonizing of Aristotle\u2019s logic is more direct and pervasive. Consequently, Iamblichus offers a Platonizing reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and to the metaphysical relation of participation. Iamblichus is well aware that an ante rem form cannot be a universal synonymous predicate of its particular instantiations, and he conceives of substantial predication as a paronymous relation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals.\r\n[conclusion p. 17-18]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sra714DdTLHJIcS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1289,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"123-140"}},"sort":[2007]}

Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic, 2007
By: Deitz, Luc

Title	Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2007
Journal	Vivarum
Volume	45
Issue	1
Pages	113-124
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Deitz, Luc
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Francesco Patrizi da Chersos Discussiones peripateticae (1581) are one of the most com- prehensive analyses of the whole of Aristotelian philosophy to be published before Werner Jaeger s Aristoteles . The main thrust of the argument in the Discussiones is that whatever Aristotle had said that was true was not new, and that whatever he had said that was new was not true. The article shows how Patrizi proves this with respect to the Organon , and deals with the implications for the history of ancient philosophy in general implied by his stance. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jBaQdPWRsyt3XGo

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1299","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1299,"authors_free":[{"id":1892,"entry_id":1299,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":88,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Deitz, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Deitz","norm_person":{"id":88,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Deitz","full_name":"Deitz, Luc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113154011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic","main_title":{"title":"Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic"},"abstract":"Francesco Patrizi da Chersos Discussiones peripateticae (1581) are one of the most com- prehensive analyses of the whole of Aristotelian philosophy to be published before Werner Jaeger s Aristoteles . The main thrust of the argument in the Discussiones is that whatever Aristotle had said that was true was not new, and that whatever he had said that was new was not true. The article shows how Patrizi proves this with respect to the Organon , and deals with the implications for the history of ancient philosophy in general implied by his stance. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jBaQdPWRsyt3XGo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":88,"full_name":"Deitz, Luc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1299,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarum","volume":"45","issue":"1","pages":"113-124"}},"sort":[2007]}

Les bibliothèques philosophiques d’après le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles, 2007
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)

Title	Les bibliothèques philosophiques d’après le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2007
Published in	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Pages	135-153
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

L’enquête que nous venons de mener est semée d’incertitudes, et elle est souvent aporétique. Mais quelques conclusions peuvent être tirées de façon prudente. L’enseignement dispensé dans les écoles néoplatoniciennes suivait un programme qui, depuis les diverses propédeutiques jusqu’à l’étude des poèmes “révélés”, impliquait l’usage de livres – le programme pouvant être interprété comme une sorte de “catalogue idéal”. La pratique du commentaire, essentielle dans ces milieux, semble s’être accompagnée, dans certains cas du moins, d’un usage de manuscrits – sans doute de grand format – dans les marges desquels étaient consignés des développements exégétiques (et l’on aimerait mieux savoir quel type d’écriture pouvait être alors utilisé : faut-il imaginer parfois un recours à une micrographie, comme dans l’exemple byzantin du Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 35, copié pour Aréthas vers 900 ?). Sur certains dossiers, comme celui de l’origine des modèles de la “Collection philosophique” (la bibliothèque de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Alexandrie ?), la recherche a progressé, mettant en lumière le rôle probable de Stéphanos d’Alexandrie dans le transfert à Constantinople, au début du VIIᵉ siècle, des modèles tardo-antiques de la Collection. Cet exemple montre que l’on peut attendre, au gré des recherches, un progrès de nos connaissances, par-delà les considérations souvent hypothétiques qui ont été ici présentées. [conclusion p. 152-153]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Yfl8Gt8Sgf5xdCH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"502","_score":null,"_source":{"id":502,"authors_free":[{"id":694,"entry_id":502,"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":695,"entry_id":502,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles","main_title":{"title":"Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"},"abstract":"L\u2019enqu\u00eate que nous venons de mener est sem\u00e9e d\u2019incertitudes, et elle est souvent apor\u00e9tique. Mais quelques conclusions peuvent \u00eatre tir\u00e9es de fa\u00e7on prudente.\r\n\r\nL\u2019enseignement dispens\u00e9 dans les \u00e9coles n\u00e9oplatoniciennes suivait un programme qui, depuis les diverses prop\u00e9deutiques jusqu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des po\u00e8mes \u201cr\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s\u201d, impliquait l\u2019usage de livres \u2013 le programme pouvant \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9 comme une sorte de \u201ccatalogue id\u00e9al\u201d. La pratique du commentaire, essentielle dans ces milieux, semble s\u2019\u00eatre accompagn\u00e9e, dans certains cas du moins, d\u2019un usage de manuscrits \u2013 sans doute de grand format \u2013 dans les marges desquels \u00e9taient consign\u00e9s des d\u00e9veloppements ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques (et l\u2019on aimerait mieux savoir quel type d\u2019\u00e9criture pouvait \u00eatre alors utilis\u00e9 : faut-il imaginer parfois un recours \u00e0 une micrographie, comme dans l\u2019exemple byzantin du Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 35, copi\u00e9 pour Ar\u00e9thas vers 900 ?).\r\n\r\nSur certains dossiers, comme celui de l\u2019origine des mod\u00e8les de la \u201cCollection philosophique\u201d (la biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Alexandrie ?), la recherche a progress\u00e9, mettant en lumi\u00e8re le r\u00f4le probable de St\u00e9phanos d\u2019Alexandrie dans le transfert \u00e0 Constantinople, au d\u00e9but du VII\u1d49 si\u00e8cle, des mod\u00e8les tardo-antiques de la Collection.\r\n\r\nCet exemple montre que l\u2019on peut attendre, au gr\u00e9 des recherches, un progr\u00e8s de nos connaissances, par-del\u00e0 les consid\u00e9rations souvent hypoth\u00e9tiques qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ici pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es. [conclusion p. 152-153]","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Yfl8Gt8Sgf5xdCH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":502,"section_of":37,"pages":"135-153","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2007]}

Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Volume	100
Issue	2
Pages	637-676
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Récapitulons l'essentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le véritable auteur du commentaire, qui dorénavant doit être attribué à Georges Pachymère. Nous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire à Psellos descend d'un ancêtre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., écrit à la fin du XIVᵉ siècle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant à un archétype, écrit vers l'an 1300 et aujourd'hui perdu (l'Escorialensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachymère, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer grâce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et à des témoignages du XVIᵉ siècle. Cet archétype de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a été copié sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachymère, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique. [Conclusion, p. 676]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VvESFt1BJvfvNnQ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":536,"authors_free":[{"id":758,"entry_id":536,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos","main_title":{"title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos"},"abstract":"R\u00e9capitulons l'essentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le v\u00e9ritable auteur du commentaire, qui dor\u00e9navant doit \u00eatre attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Georges Pachym\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire \u00e0 Psellos descend d'un anc\u00eatre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., \u00e9crit \u00e0 la fin du XIV\u1d49 si\u00e8cle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant \u00e0 un arch\u00e9type, \u00e9crit vers l'an 1300 et aujourd'hui perdu (l'Escorialensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachym\u00e8re, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer gr\u00e2ce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et \u00e0 des t\u00e9moignages du XVI\u1d49 si\u00e8cle.\r\n\r\nCet arch\u00e9type de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a \u00e9t\u00e9 copi\u00e9 sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachym\u00e8re, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique.\r\n\r\n[Conclusion, p. 676]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VvESFt1BJvfvNnQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":536,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantinische Zeitschrift ","volume":"100","issue":"2","pages":"637-676"}},"sort":[2007]}

Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)

Title	Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2007
Published in	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Pages	243-256
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

Les qualités que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent communément de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clarté des exposés et la pertinence de l’exégèse, ce commentaire a joui d’une longue postérité chez les érudits et philosophes byzantins. En témoigne d’emblée l’abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits à l’époque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d’entre eux sont conservés aujourd’hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le même ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L’utilisation de ce commentaire à Byzance a été presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu’à Pléthon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l’Epitomé isagogique (Εἰσαγωγική ἐπιτομή) de Nicéphore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte à la Physique d’Aristote en représente le point culminant. Avant d’aborder l’étude qui nous intéresse ici particulièrement, quelques brèves précisions sur la nature de l’ouvrage seront utiles. L’Epitomé isagogique – autrement dit Abrégé introductif – est un compendium scolaire divisé en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appelées communément Epitomé logique et Epitomé physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l’essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l’astronomie), la partie physique ayant été publiée dans sa forme finale vers l’an 1260. L’Epitomé de Blemmyde n’appartient évidemment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorité mais plutôt sur des thèmes philosophiques, qui sont annoncés par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l’ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l’érudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les spéculations étendues déclenchées par ce qui est dit ou n’est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorité, la mention des auteurs antérieurs, les citations précises. On a ici affaire non pas à un commentateur, mais plutôt à un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et nécessaires (τὰ καρικώτερα καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότερα, comme il le dit lui-même dans son autobiographie). Les matériaux à partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l’Epitomé physique sont mis en place sont empruntés surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius à la Physique et au traité Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au traité De la génération et de la corruption et celui d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux Météorologiques. C’est précisément le rapport de l’Epitomé physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique – la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres – qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous tâcherons d’aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire apparaître, d’une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde à Simplicius et évaluer, d’autre part – en considération du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fidèlement des passages entiers de son modèle – le rôle de l’Epitomé comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1319","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1319,"authors_free":[{"id":1953,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2375,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les qualit\u00e9s que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent commun\u00e9ment de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clart\u00e9 des expos\u00e9s et la pertinence de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, ce commentaire a joui d\u2019une longue post\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez les \u00e9rudits et philosophes byzantins. En t\u00e9moigne d\u2019embl\u00e9e l\u2019abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d\u2019entre eux sont conserv\u00e9s aujourd\u2019hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le m\u00eame ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L\u2019utilisation de ce commentaire \u00e0 Byzance a \u00e9t\u00e9 presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu\u2019\u00e0 Pl\u00e9thon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique (\u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae) de Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote en repr\u00e9sente le point culminant.\r\n\r\nAvant d\u2019aborder l\u2019\u00e9tude qui nous int\u00e9resse ici particuli\u00e8rement, quelques br\u00e8ves pr\u00e9cisions sur la nature de l\u2019ouvrage seront utiles. L\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique \u2013 autrement dit Abr\u00e9g\u00e9 introductif \u2013 est un compendium scolaire divis\u00e9 en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appel\u00e9es commun\u00e9ment Epitom\u00e9 logique et Epitom\u00e9 physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l\u2019essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l\u2019astronomie), la partie physique ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e dans sa forme finale vers l\u2019an 1260.\r\n\r\nL\u2019Epitom\u00e9 de Blemmyde n\u2019appartient \u00e9videmment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorit\u00e9 mais plut\u00f4t sur des th\u00e8mes philosophiques, qui sont annonc\u00e9s par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l\u2019ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l\u2019\u00e9rudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les sp\u00e9culations \u00e9tendues d\u00e9clench\u00e9es par ce qui est dit ou n\u2019est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorit\u00e9, la mention des auteurs ant\u00e9rieurs, les citations pr\u00e9cises. On a ici affaire non pas \u00e0 un commentateur, mais plut\u00f4t \u00e0 un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et n\u00e9cessaires (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, comme il le dit lui-m\u00eame dans son autobiographie).\r\n\r\nLes mat\u00e9riaux \u00e0 partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique sont mis en place sont emprunt\u00e9s surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique et au trait\u00e9 Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au trait\u00e9 De la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration et de la corruption et celui d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise aux M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques. C\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment le rapport de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique \u2013 la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres \u2013 qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous t\u00e2cherons d\u2019aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire appara\u00eetre, d\u2019une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde \u00e0 Simplicius et \u00e9valuer, d\u2019autre part \u2013 en consid\u00e9ration du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fid\u00e8lement des passages entiers de son mod\u00e8le \u2013 le r\u00f4le de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1319,"section_of":37,"pages":"243-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2007]}

La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs , 2007
By: Goulet, Richard, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)

Title	La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2007
Published in	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Pages	29-62
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Goulet, Richard
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

Mais face à tous les facteurs matériels, sociologiques, historiques qui précarisaient la transmission de ces textes et provoquaient de siècle en siècle la disparition de nombre d’entre eux, il s’est trouvé à tous les âges des esprits suffisamment éclairés pour en saisir la valeur et en assurer la copie ou au moins la conservation, et d’autres encore pour les traduire en diverses langues, les paraphraser, les annoter et les commenter, parfois même s’en inspirer pour construire leur propre philosophie. Pour nous aussi, qui affrontons à notre tour de nouveaux supports, c’est peut-être cette activité fondamentale de transmission de l’héritage antique qui restera notre plus grand titre de gloire. Nous pourrons dire à nos successeurs, s’il s’en trouve : nous vous transmettons ce que nous avons reçu, nous avons essayé d’y mettre un peu d’ordre, nous avons édité et traduit ces textes, nous avons ajouté des gloses pour expliquer ce que nos contemporains n’étaient plus en mesure de comprendre facilement, nous n’avons pas nous-mêmes tout compris, mais tout est bien là. [conclusion p. 61]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mQmvNRD4MKEBc5h

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1333","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1333,"authors_free":[{"id":1966,"entry_id":1333,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2374,"entry_id":1333,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs ","main_title":{"title":"La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs "},"abstract":"Mais face \u00e0 tous les facteurs mat\u00e9riels, sociologiques, historiques qui pr\u00e9carisaient la transmission de ces textes et provoquaient de si\u00e8cle en si\u00e8cle la disparition de nombre d\u2019entre eux, il s\u2019est trouv\u00e9 \u00e0 tous les \u00e2ges des esprits suffisamment \u00e9clair\u00e9s pour en saisir la valeur et en assurer la copie ou au moins la conservation, et d\u2019autres encore pour les traduire en diverses langues, les paraphraser, les annoter et les commenter, parfois m\u00eame s\u2019en inspirer pour construire leur propre philosophie.\r\n\r\nPour nous aussi, qui affrontons \u00e0 notre tour de nouveaux supports, c\u2019est peut-\u00eatre cette activit\u00e9 fondamentale de transmission de l\u2019h\u00e9ritage antique qui restera notre plus grand titre de gloire. Nous pourrons dire \u00e0 nos successeurs, s\u2019il s\u2019en trouve : nous vous transmettons ce que nous avons re\u00e7u, nous avons essay\u00e9 d\u2019y mettre un peu d\u2019ordre, nous avons \u00e9dit\u00e9 et traduit ces textes, nous avons ajout\u00e9 des gloses pour expliquer ce que nos contemporains n\u2019\u00e9taient plus en mesure de comprendre facilement, nous n\u2019avons pas nous-m\u00eames tout compris, mais tout est bien l\u00e0. [conclusion p. 61]","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mQmvNRD4MKEBc5h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1333,"section_of":37,"pages":"29-62","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2007]}

Democrito e l'Accademia. Studi sulla trasmissione dell’atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio, 2007
By: Gemelli Marciano, Millj Laura

Title	Democrito e l'Accademia. Studi sulla trasmissione dell’atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2007
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Studia Praesocratica
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gemelli Marciano, Millj Laura
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Wie sind die antiken Atomisten zur Annahme der Atome gekommen, und wie haben sie deren Unteilbarkeit aufgefasst? Dies sind die schwierigsten Fragen in der Forschung zum antiken Atomismus, und ihnen widmet sich Laura Gemelli in der vorliegenden Studie. Sie überprüft die antike Überlieferung unter einem neuen Gesichtspunkt: nämlich ausgehend von dem Einfluss, den der akademische Atomismus und die damit verbundenen Problemstellungen und Begriffe auf die Interpretation des antiken Atomismus bei Aristoteles hatten. Diese bisher vernachlässigte Perspektive führt zur kritischen Revision allgemein akzeptierter Thesen wie der Entstehung des Atomismus aus dem Eleatismus und der Annahme des Atoms als Lösung der Aporien über die unendliche Teilbarkeit. Die von Aristoteles und von Theophrast ausgehenden Auffassungen des Atomismus werden dann in ihrer weiteren Entwicklung bis zum Neuplatonismus verfolgt. Das Buch schafft die Grundlagen für eine Neubewertung der Quellen und für eine Verschiebung der Perspektive in der Forschung zum antiken Atomismus. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U3EjUn93CcQdEug

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1414","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1414,"authors_free":[{"id":2215,"entry_id":1414,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":393,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gemelli Marciano, Millj Laura","free_first_name":"Millj Laura","free_last_name":"Gemelli Marciano","norm_person":{"id":393,"first_name":"Millj Laura","last_name":"Gemelli Marciano","full_name":"Gemelli Marciano, Millj Laura","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124333133","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Democrito e l'Accademia. Studi sulla trasmissione dell\u2019atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Democrito e l'Accademia. Studi sulla trasmissione dell\u2019atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio"},"abstract":"Wie sind die antiken Atomisten zur Annahme der Atome gekommen, und wie haben sie deren Unteilbarkeit aufgefasst? Dies sind die schwierigsten Fragen in der Forschung zum antiken Atomismus, und ihnen widmet sich Laura Gemelli in der vorliegenden Studie. Sie \u00fcberpr\u00fcft die antike \u00dcberlieferung unter einem neuen Gesichtspunkt: n\u00e4mlich ausgehend von dem Einfluss, den der akademische Atomismus und die damit verbundenen Problemstellungen und Begriffe auf die Interpretation des antiken Atomismus bei Aristoteles hatten.\r\n\r\nDiese bisher vernachl\u00e4ssigte Perspektive f\u00fchrt zur kritischen Revision allgemein akzeptierter Thesen wie der Entstehung des Atomismus aus dem Eleatismus und der Annahme des Atoms als L\u00f6sung der Aporien \u00fcber die unendliche Teilbarkeit. Die von Aristoteles und von Theophrast ausgehenden Auffassungen des Atomismus werden dann in ihrer weiteren Entwicklung bis zum Neuplatonismus verfolgt. Das Buch schafft die Grundlagen f\u00fcr eine Neubewertung der Quellen und f\u00fcr eine Verschiebung der Perspektive in der Forschung zum antiken Atomismus. [official abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2007","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U3EjUn93CcQdEug","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":393,"full_name":"Gemelli Marciano, Millj Laura","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1414,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Studia Praesocratica","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2007]}

Addenda Eudemea, 2006
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	Addenda Eudemea
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2006
Journal	Leeds International Classical Studies
Volume	5
Issue	1
Pages	1-28
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HRE0ldIrfqIxrEE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1119","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1119,"authors_free":[{"id":1692,"entry_id":1119,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addenda Eudemea","main_title":{"title":"Addenda Eudemea"},"abstract":"This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HRE0ldIrfqIxrEE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1119,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Leeds International Classical Studies","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"1-28"}},"sort":[2006]}

Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles, 2006
By: Perkams, Matthias, Ackeren, Marcel van (Ed.), Müller, Jörn (Ed.)

Title	Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2006
Published in	Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy
Pages	332-347
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)	Ackeren, Marcel van , Müller, Jörn
Translator(s)

In gewisser Weise bestätigen diese Überlegungen Sorabjis Feststellung, dass „sich eine vollkommen verrückte Position (die Harmonie) als philosophisch fruchtbar erwies“ (1990, 5). Philoponos’ und Priskians Ausführungen sind in der Tat gute Beispiele dafür, wie das Vorverständnis, es bestehe eine Harmonie zwischen Platon und Aristoteles, dazu führte, dass die aristotelischen Texte in einer originellen Weise interpretiert wurden, die zu neuen philosophischen Entwicklungen Anlass gab. Insofern behalten die Kommentare ein originäres Interesse sowohl für den Philosophiehistoriker als auch für denjenigen, der an originellen Gedanken und Ideen aus einer systematischen Perspektive interessiert ist. Zudem stellt sich die Frage, ob man die These der Harmonie tatsächlich als „verrückt“ bezeichnen soll. So mag sie manchem scheinen, der aus der Perspektive moderner historisch-kritischer Forschung einen deutlichen Unterschied von Platon und Aristoteles erkennt. Für die Kommentatoren selbst war die Harmonisierung aber definitiv nicht verrückt, sondern sie war, wie oben bereits angedeutet, unter den Bedingungen ihrer Zeit ein wichtiges Mittel dazu, die eigene Identität zu wahren und die Deutungshoheit über die gesamte ältere Tradition gegenüber den Ansprüchen des Christentums zu erhalten. Zudem macht die Harmonie auf ein anderes Charakteristikum der neuplatonischen Philosophie aufmerksam, das Simplikios herausstreicht: Das Ziel des Philosophierens besteht darin, durch die Suche nach der Wahrheit als Mensch zu wachsen. Der Königsweg der Neuplatoniker zu diesem Ziel ist es, die Werke ihrer Vorgänger zu studieren und das zu übernehmen, was zu diesem Ziel beiträgt. Das ist eine Maxime für das philosophische Studium, die bis heute nichts von ihrer Aktualität verloren hat. [conclusion p. 347]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iwVpoc1bGR9ng0D

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1149","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1149,"authors_free":[{"id":1724,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2453,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":485,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","free_first_name":"Marcel","free_last_name":"Ackeren, van","norm_person":{"id":485,"first_name":"Marcel","last_name":"Ackeren, van","full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129255769","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2455,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":486,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","free_first_name":"J\u00f6rn","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":486,"first_name":"J\u00f6rn","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132026864","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles","main_title":{"title":"Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles"},"abstract":"In gewisser Weise best\u00e4tigen diese \u00dcberlegungen Sorabjis Feststellung, dass \u201esich eine vollkommen verr\u00fcckte Position (die Harmonie) als philosophisch fruchtbar erwies\u201c (1990, 5). Philoponos\u2019 und Priskians Ausf\u00fchrungen sind in der Tat gute Beispiele daf\u00fcr, wie das Vorverst\u00e4ndnis, es bestehe eine Harmonie zwischen Platon und Aristoteles, dazu f\u00fchrte, dass die aristotelischen Texte in einer originellen Weise interpretiert wurden, die zu neuen philosophischen Entwicklungen Anlass gab. Insofern behalten die Kommentare ein origin\u00e4res Interesse sowohl f\u00fcr den Philosophiehistoriker als auch f\u00fcr denjenigen, der an originellen Gedanken und Ideen aus einer systematischen Perspektive interessiert ist.\r\n\r\nZudem stellt sich die Frage, ob man die These der Harmonie tats\u00e4chlich als \u201everr\u00fcckt\u201c bezeichnen soll. So mag sie manchem scheinen, der aus der Perspektive moderner historisch-kritischer Forschung einen deutlichen Unterschied von Platon und Aristoteles erkennt. F\u00fcr die Kommentatoren selbst war die Harmonisierung aber definitiv nicht verr\u00fcckt, sondern sie war, wie oben bereits angedeutet, unter den Bedingungen ihrer Zeit ein wichtiges Mittel dazu, die eigene Identit\u00e4t zu wahren und die Deutungshoheit \u00fcber die gesamte \u00e4ltere Tradition gegen\u00fcber den Anspr\u00fcchen des Christentums zu erhalten.\r\n\r\nZudem macht die Harmonie auf ein anderes Charakteristikum der neuplatonischen Philosophie aufmerksam, das Simplikios herausstreicht: Das Ziel des Philosophierens besteht darin, durch die Suche nach der Wahrheit als Mensch zu wachsen. Der K\u00f6nigsweg der Neuplatoniker zu diesem Ziel ist es, die Werke ihrer Vorg\u00e4nger zu studieren und das zu \u00fcbernehmen, was zu diesem Ziel beitr\u00e4gt. Das ist eine Maxime f\u00fcr das philosophische Studium, die bis heute nichts von ihrer Aktualit\u00e4t verloren hat. [conclusion p. 347]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iwVpoc1bGR9ng0D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":485,"full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":486,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1149,"section_of":306,"pages":"332-347","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":306,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"vanAckeren_M\u00fcller_2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkar\u00e4tig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verst\u00e4ndnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster f\u00fcr den modernen Leser und erl\u00e4utern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen k\u00f6nnen. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche \u00dcbersetzungsprobleme k\u00f6nnen auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente \u00fcberhaupt \u00fcberliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung \u00e4lterer Texte, die f\u00fcr ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das f\u00fcr viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HHFDfWDciwoyh50","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":306,"pubplace":"Darmstadt","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid,

Title	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Chernoglazov, Alexander(Chernoglazov, Alexander) .

Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Schüler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark überarbeitete Übersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz über die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1214","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1214,"authors_free":[{"id":2437,"entry_id":1214,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2451,"entry_id":1214,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":484,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","free_first_name":"Alexander","free_last_name":"Chernoglazov","norm_person":{"id":484,"first_name":"Alexander","last_name":"Chernoglazov","full_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity"},"abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":484,"full_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

The historiographical project of the Lyceum, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid

Title	The historiographical project of the Lyceum
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Pages	117-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their "perfection" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the prôtos heuretês principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato’s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century. The key notion of Aristotle’s systematics was epistēmē, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle’s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental. Each of these "histories" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of "principles" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge. This perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus’ works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary. [conclusion p. 164-165]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1215","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1215,"authors_free":[{"id":1797,"entry_id":1215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum","main_title":{"title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum"},"abstract":"Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their \"perfection\" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the pr\u00f4tos heuret\u00eas principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato\u2019s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century.\r\n\r\nThe key notion of Aristotle\u2019s systematics was epist\u0113m\u0113, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental.\r\n\r\nEach of these \"histories\" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of \"principles\" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge.\r\n\r\nThis perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus\u2019 works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary.\r\n[conclusion p. 164-165]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1215,"section_of":1214,"pages":"117-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averroè e Pietro d'Alvernia, 2006
By: Musatti, Cesare Alberto

Title	Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averroè e Pietro d'Alvernia
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2006
Journal	Quaestio
Volume	6
Pages	524–549
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Musatti, Cesare Alberto
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In aggiunta a questi va almeno ricordata l’edizione della traduzione latina dello pseudo-avicenniano Liber de caelo et mundo, parafrasi di alcune parti dei primi due libri del De caelo, tradotta in latino da Domenico Gundissalino e Giovanni di Spagna nel terzo quarto del XII secolo. Inizialmente confuso con lo stesso De caelo di Aristotele, il testo nel XIII secolo (all’incirca dal 1240 in poi) è stato attribuito quasi sempre ad Avicenna. Oggi invece, in virtù soprattutto della testimonianza del Catalogo (Kitāb al-Fihrist) di Ibn al-Nadīm, viene fatto il nome del celebre medico e traduttore Isḥāq ibn Ḥunayn come suo possibile autore. In merito a questa attribuzione bisogna tuttavia tenere presenti le osservazioni di Gutman (pp. XIII-XVII dell’introduzione all’edizione), il quale ha editato il testo sotto il nome dello Pseudo-Avicenna. Per quanto riguarda il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo, nel Medioevo si sono avute due traduzioni latine: una parziale (II libro e prologo del III) ad opera di Roberto Grossatesta, che Bossier data tra il 1235 e il 1253, e una completa di Guglielmo di Moerbeke, conclusa nel 1271. La traduzione di Grossatesta ci è conservata in un solo manoscritto (Oxford, Balliol College 99), e non sembra avere avuto un’ampia diffusione, mentre della traduzione completa di Guglielmo di Moerbeke attualmente sono conosciuti con certezza sei manoscritti. Se sembra da escludere qualsiasi ipotesi di una revisione da parte di Moerbeke della traduzione di Grossatesta del commento di Simplicio, ancora non definitivamente risolta è invece la questione se la traduzione moerbekana del De caelo di Aristotele sia o meno una revisione di quella incompleta del Grossatesta (II libro e prologo del III) che è presente in forma di lemmi nello stesso manoscritto che contiene il commento di Simplicio. Bossier considera «plus probable» l’opinione di D. J. Allan, secondo cui la traduzione di Moerbeke è indipendente da quella del Grossatesta, mentre Lacombe e Franceschini hanno ritenuto trattarsi di una revisione. L’esistenza di un manoscritto (Vat. lat. 2088) nel quale la traduzione del De caelo di Moerbeke risulta contaminata con quella di Grossatesta anche per alcune parti del primo libro lascia supporre che il Lincolniensis abbia tradotto anche quest’ultimo libro, e non solo il II e l’inizio del III. È stato infine ipotizzato che Grossatesta abbia tradotto anche il primo libro del commento di Simplicio. La traduzione del vescovo di Lincoln del II libro del De caelo è ora consultabile nell’Aristoteles Latinus Database, così come il testo della seconda recensione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke al De caelo di Aristotele. Di quest’ultima traduzione esistono infatti tre recensioni differenti, di cui la seconda è la cosiddetta recensio vulgata. Il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo è stato scritto probabilmente intorno al 540. Prima di lui almeno due altri autori avevano dedicato un commento al testo aristotelico: Alessandro di Afrodisia e Temistio. Il commento di Alessandro di Afrodisia è andato perduto sia nel testo greco che nella traduzione araba di Abū Bishr Mattā ibn Yūnus. Molte notizie le possiamo trarre però dal commento di Simplicio, di cui il testo di Alessandro costituisce la fonte principale. Il commento di Alessandro viene citato anche nella parafrasi sul De caelo scritta da Temistio. Come per Alessandro di Afrodisia, il testo di Temistio è anch’esso andato perduto sia nell’originale greco che nella traduzione araba di Yaḥyā ibn ʿAdī. Si è salvato soltanto nella traduzione ebraica di quest’ultima compiuta nel 1284 da Zerahyah ben Isaac ben Shealtiel Gracian, e nella successiva versione latina del testo ebraico ad opera di Mosé Alatino nel 1574. È opportuno ricordare che, a differenza dei commenti di Alessandro di Afrodisia e di Temistio, il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo non è stato conosciuto dal mondo arabo. [introduction p. 525-526]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vE3O8oovZ2S3BG7

{"_index":"sire","_id":"617","_score":null,"_source":{"id":617,"authors_free":[{"id":873,"entry_id":617,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":274,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Musatti, Cesare Alberto","free_first_name":"Cesare Alberto","free_last_name":"Musatti","norm_person":{"id":274,"first_name":"Cesare Alberto","last_name":"Musatti","full_name":"Musatti, Cesare Alberto","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averro\u00e8 e Pietro d'Alvernia","main_title":{"title":"Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averro\u00e8 e Pietro d'Alvernia"},"abstract":"In aggiunta a questi va almeno ricordata l\u2019edizione della traduzione latina dello pseudo-avicenniano Liber de caelo et mundo, parafrasi di alcune parti dei primi due libri del De caelo, tradotta in latino da Domenico Gundissalino e Giovanni di Spagna nel terzo quarto del XII secolo. Inizialmente confuso con lo stesso De caelo di Aristotele, il testo nel XIII secolo (all\u2019incirca dal 1240 in poi) \u00e8 stato attribuito quasi sempre ad Avicenna. Oggi invece, in virt\u00f9 soprattutto della testimonianza del Catalogo (Kit\u0101b al-Fihrist) di Ibn al-Nad\u012bm, viene fatto il nome del celebre medico e traduttore Is\u1e25\u0101q ibn \u1e24unayn come suo possibile autore.\r\n\r\nIn merito a questa attribuzione bisogna tuttavia tenere presenti le osservazioni di Gutman (pp. XIII-XVII dell\u2019introduzione all\u2019edizione), il quale ha editato il testo sotto il nome dello Pseudo-Avicenna.\r\n\r\nPer quanto riguarda il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo, nel Medioevo si sono avute due traduzioni latine: una parziale (II libro e prologo del III) ad opera di Roberto Grossatesta, che Bossier data tra il 1235 e il 1253, e una completa di Guglielmo di Moerbeke, conclusa nel 1271.\r\n\r\nLa traduzione di Grossatesta ci \u00e8 conservata in un solo manoscritto (Oxford, Balliol College 99), e non sembra avere avuto un\u2019ampia diffusione, mentre della traduzione completa di Guglielmo di Moerbeke attualmente sono conosciuti con certezza sei manoscritti.\r\n\r\nSe sembra da escludere qualsiasi ipotesi di una revisione da parte di Moerbeke della traduzione di Grossatesta del commento di Simplicio, ancora non definitivamente risolta \u00e8 invece la questione se la traduzione moerbekana del De caelo di Aristotele sia o meno una revisione di quella incompleta del Grossatesta (II libro e prologo del III) che \u00e8 presente in forma di lemmi nello stesso manoscritto che contiene il commento di Simplicio.\r\n\r\nBossier considera \u00abplus probable\u00bb l\u2019opinione di D. J. Allan, secondo cui la traduzione di Moerbeke \u00e8 indipendente da quella del Grossatesta, mentre Lacombe e Franceschini hanno ritenuto trattarsi di una revisione.\r\n\r\nL\u2019esistenza di un manoscritto (Vat. lat. 2088) nel quale la traduzione del De caelo di Moerbeke risulta contaminata con quella di Grossatesta anche per alcune parti del primo libro lascia supporre che il Lincolniensis abbia tradotto anche quest\u2019ultimo libro, e non solo il II e l\u2019inizio del III. \u00c8 stato infine ipotizzato che Grossatesta abbia tradotto anche il primo libro del commento di Simplicio.\r\n\r\nLa traduzione del vescovo di Lincoln del II libro del De caelo \u00e8 ora consultabile nell\u2019Aristoteles Latinus Database, cos\u00ec come il testo della seconda recensione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke al De caelo di Aristotele. Di quest\u2019ultima traduzione esistono infatti tre recensioni differenti, di cui la seconda \u00e8 la cosiddetta recensio vulgata.\r\n\r\nIl commento di Simplicio sul De caelo \u00e8 stato scritto probabilmente intorno al 540. Prima di lui almeno due altri autori avevano dedicato un commento al testo aristotelico: Alessandro di Afrodisia e Temistio.\r\n\r\nIl commento di Alessandro di Afrodisia \u00e8 andato perduto sia nel testo greco che nella traduzione araba di Ab\u016b Bishr Matt\u0101 ibn Y\u016bnus. Molte notizie le possiamo trarre per\u00f2 dal commento di Simplicio, di cui il testo di Alessandro costituisce la fonte principale.\r\n\r\nIl commento di Alessandro viene citato anche nella parafrasi sul De caelo scritta da Temistio. Come per Alessandro di Afrodisia, il testo di Temistio \u00e8 anch\u2019esso andato perduto sia nell\u2019originale greco che nella traduzione araba di Ya\u1e25y\u0101 ibn \u02bfAd\u012b. Si \u00e8 salvato soltanto nella traduzione ebraica di quest\u2019ultima compiuta nel 1284 da Zerahyah ben Isaac ben Shealtiel Gracian, e nella successiva versione latina del testo ebraico ad opera di Mos\u00e9 Alatino nel 1574.\r\n\r\n\u00c8 opportuno ricordare che, a differenza dei commenti di Alessandro di Afrodisia e di Temistio, il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo non \u00e8 stato conosciuto dal mondo arabo. [introduction p. 525-526]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vE3O8oovZ2S3BG7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":274,"full_name":"Musatti, Cesare Alberto","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":617,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestio","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"524\u2013549"}},"sort":[2006]}

Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian, 2006
By: McGinnis, Jon

Title	Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2006
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	51
Issue	2
Pages	140-161
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	McGinnis, Jon
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle's account of place in terms of an innermost limit of a containing body was to generate serious discussion and controversy among Aristotle's later commentators, especially when it was applied to the cosmos as a whole. The problem was that since there is nothing outside of the cosmos that could contain it, the cosmos apparently could not have a place according to Aristotle's definition; however, if the cosmos does not have a place, then it is not clear that it could move, but it was thought to move, namely, in its daily revolution, which was viewed as a kind of natural locomotion and so required the cosmos to have a place. The study briefly outlines Aristotle's account of place and then considers its fate, particularly with respect to the cosmos and its motion, at the hands of later commentators. To this end, it begins with Theophrastus' puzzles concerning Aristotle's account of place, and how later Greek commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and others, attempted to address these problems in what can only be described as ad hoc ways. It then considers Philoponus' exploitation of these problems as a means to replace Aristotle's account of place with his own account of place understood in terms of extension. The study concludes with the Arabic Neoplatonizing Aristotelian Avicenna and his novel intro- duction of a new category of motion, namely, motion in the category of position. Briefly, Avicenna denies that the cosmos has a place, and so claims that it moves not with respect to place, but with respect to position. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EODvwNwP7DcvnBH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"729","_score":null,"_source":{"id":729,"authors_free":[{"id":1092,"entry_id":729,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":252,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McGinnis, Jon","free_first_name":"Jon","free_last_name":"McGinnis","norm_person":{"id":252,"first_name":"Jon","last_name":"McGinnis","full_name":"McGinnis, Jon","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141369248","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian","main_title":{"title":"Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian"},"abstract":"Aristotle's account of place in terms of an innermost limit of a containing body was to generate serious discussion and controversy among Aristotle's later commentators, especially when it was applied to the cosmos as a whole. The problem was that since there is nothing outside of the cosmos that could contain it, the cosmos apparently could not have a place according to Aristotle's definition; however, if the cosmos does not have a place, then it is not clear that it could move, but it was thought to move, namely, in its daily revolution, which was viewed as a kind of natural locomotion and so required the cosmos to have a place. The study briefly outlines Aristotle's account of place and then considers its fate, particularly with respect to the cosmos and its motion, at the hands of later commentators. To this end, it begins with Theophrastus' puzzles concerning Aristotle's account of place, and how later Greek commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and others, attempted to address these problems in what can only be described as ad hoc ways. It then considers Philoponus' exploitation of these problems as a means to replace Aristotle's account of place with his own account of place understood in terms of extension. The study concludes with the Arabic Neoplatonizing Aristotelian Avicenna and his novel intro- duction of a new category of motion, namely, motion in the category of position. Briefly, Avicenna denies that the cosmos has a place, and so claims that it moves not with respect to place, but with respect to position. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EODvwNwP7DcvnBH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":252,"full_name":"McGinnis, Jon","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":729,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"51","issue":"2","pages":"140-161"}},"sort":[2006]}

Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition, 2006
By: Mejer, Jørgen, Gill, Mary Louise (Ed.), Pellegrin, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	A Companion to Ancient Philosophy
Pages	20-33
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mejer, Jørgen
Editor(s)	Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre
Translator(s)

Most of the other philosophical Lives from late antiquity are written in the context of the Platonic philosophy: Apuleius wrote a book on Plato and his philosophy in the second century ce, and a hundred years later both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote biographies of Pythagoras, but they are all three more of value as a source to the times of their authors than as a source to the subject of their biographies. Porphyry’s life of Pythagoras was part of his Historia Philosopha, on the history of philosophy in four books up to and culminating in Plato. More important is the fact that we have biographies of some Neoplatonic philosophers written by their students: Porphyry not only collected and edited Plotinus’ writings at the end of the third century ce, he also wrote a vivid description of Plotinus’ life as he knew it from his own time with the Neoplatonic philosopher in Rome.3 Two hundred years later Marinus wrote a life of Proclus who was head of the Academy in Athens in the fifth century ce, and early in the sixth century Damascius wrote a Historia Philosopha (previously called Life of Isidorus), which covers the last couple of generations of Platonic philosophers in Athens. Since we have so many writings by the Neoplatonic philosophers themselves, the significance of these biographies is not what they have to tell us about the thoughts of these Neoplatonists, but their description of the philosophical activities in Athens. Taken together with the numerous commentaries on works of Plato and Aristotle, they offer important information about the institutional aspects of doing philosophy in late antiquity, and much remains to be done in this area.4 It is no coincidence that Simplicius and many others in this period were capable of composing commentaries that are still important both for our understanding of the texts they comment on and for our knowledge of Greek philosophy. [Conclusion, p. 33]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xN3C25WHUYQeLn0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"979","_score":null,"_source":{"id":979,"authors_free":[{"id":1478,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":254,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","free_first_name":"J\u00f8rgen","free_last_name":"Mejer","norm_person":{"id":254,"first_name":"J\u00f8rgen","last_name":"Mejer","full_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1176526987","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1479,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":208,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gill, Mary Louise","free_first_name":"Mary Louise","free_last_name":"Gill","norm_person":{"id":208,"first_name":"Mary Louise ","last_name":"Gill","full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131938045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1480,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":209,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Pellegrin","norm_person":{"id":209,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Pellegrin","full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136458742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition"},"abstract":"Most of the other philosophical Lives from late antiquity are written in the context \r\nof the Platonic philosophy: Apuleius wrote a book on Plato and his philosophy in the \r\nsecond century ce, and a hundred years later both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote \r\nbiographies of Pythagoras, but they are all three more of value as a source to the times \r\nof their authors than as a source to the subject of their biographies. Porphyry\u2019s life \r\nof Pythagoras was part of his Historia Philosopha, on the history of philosophy in \r\nfour books up to and culminating in Plato. More important is the fact that we have \r\nbiographies of some Neoplatonic philosophers written by their students: Porphyry not \r\nonly collected and edited Plotinus\u2019 writings at the end of the third century ce, he also \r\nwrote a vivid description of Plotinus\u2019 life as he knew it from his own time with the \r\nNeoplatonic philosopher in Rome.3 Two hundred years later Marinus wrote a life of \r\nProclus who was head of the Academy in Athens in the fifth century ce, and early in \r\nthe sixth century Damascius wrote a Historia Philosopha (previously called Life of \r\nIsidorus), which covers the last couple of generations of Platonic philosophers in \r\nAthens. Since we have so many writings by the Neoplatonic philosophers themselves, \r\nthe significance of these biographies is not what they have to tell us about the thoughts \r\nof these Neoplatonists, but their description of the philosophical activities in Athens. \r\nTaken together with the numerous commentaries on works of Plato and Aristotle, \r\nthey offer important information about the institutional aspects of doing philosophy in \r\nlate antiquity, and much remains to be done in this area.4 It is no coincidence that \r\nSimplicius and many others in this period were capable of composing commentaries \r\nthat are still important both for our understanding of the texts they comment on and \r\nfor our knowledge of Greek philosophy. [Conclusion, p. 33]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xN3C25WHUYQeLn0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":254,"full_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":208,"full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":209,"full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":979,"section_of":167,"pages":"20-33","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":167,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gill\/Pellegrin2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.\r\nComprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy\r\nIntegrates analytic and continental traditions\r\nExplores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy\r\nIncludes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":167,"pubplace":"Malden \u2013 Oxford - Victoria","publisher":"Blackwell Publishers","series":"Blackwell Companions to Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle, 2006
By: Sorabji, Richard, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)

Title	The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	Reading Plato in antiquity
Pages	185-193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)

In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization. Harmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23–32). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff). As an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle’s categories from Plotinus’ objections in Enneads VI.1–3. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle’s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle’s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7–8, 58.5–7, and 91.19–27) that Aristotle’s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle’s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization—whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian—ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle’s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle’s human soul into an immortal one. There can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear. In fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle. I should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm

{"_index":"sire","_id":"916","_score":null,"_source":{"id":916,"authors_free":[{"id":1351,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":1352,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1353,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"},"abstract":"In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization.\r\n\r\nHarmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23\u201332). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).\r\n\r\nAs an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle\u2019s categories from Plotinus\u2019 objections in Enneads VI.1\u20133. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle\u2019s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle\u2019s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7\u20138, 58.5\u20137, and 91.19\u201327) that Aristotle\u2019s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle\u2019s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization\u2014whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian\u2014ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle\u2019s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle\u2019s human soul into an immortal one.\r\n\r\nThere can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":916,"section_of":196,"pages":"185-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":196,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy, 2006
By: Ackeren, Marcel van (Ed.), Müller, Jörn (Ed.)

Title	Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2006
Publication Place	Darmstadt
Publisher	Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Ackeren, Marcel van , Müller, Jörn
Translator(s)

Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkarätig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verständnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster für den modernen Leser und erläutern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen können. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche Übersetzungsprobleme können auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente überhaupt überliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung älterer Texte, die für ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das für viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HHFDfWDciwoyh50

{"_index":"sire","_id":"306","_score":null,"_source":{"id":306,"authors_free":[{"id":383,"entry_id":306,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":485,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","free_first_name":"Marcel","free_last_name":"Ackeren, van","norm_person":{"id":485,"first_name":"Marcel","last_name":"Ackeren, van","full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129255769","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":384,"entry_id":306,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":486,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","free_first_name":"J\u00f6rn","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":486,"first_name":"J\u00f6rn","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132026864","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkar\u00e4tig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verst\u00e4ndnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster f\u00fcr den modernen Leser und erl\u00e4utern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen k\u00f6nnen. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche \u00dcbersetzungsprobleme k\u00f6nnen auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente \u00fcberhaupt \u00fcberliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung \u00e4lterer Texte, die f\u00fcr ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das f\u00fcr viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2006","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HHFDfWDciwoyh50","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":485,"full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":486,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":306,"pubplace":"Darmstadt","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry, 2006
By: Karamanolis, George

Title	Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Clarendon Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle’s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato’s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato’s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle’s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry’s view of Aristotle’s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works. [author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lGHQiEMtSxBEKEl

{"_index":"sire","_id":"150","_score":null,"_source":{"id":150,"authors_free":[{"id":190,"entry_id":150,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karaman\u014dl\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry","main_title":{"title":"Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry"},"abstract":"This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle\u2019s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato\u2019s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato\u2019s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle\u2019s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus\u2019s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry\u2019s view of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lGHQiEMtSxBEKEl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":150,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, 2006
By: Gill, Mary Louise (Ed.), Pellegrin, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	A Companion to Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Malden – Oxford - Victoria
Publisher	Blackwell Publishers
Series	Blackwell Companions to Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre
Translator(s)

A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity. Comprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy Integrates analytic and continental traditions Explores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy Includes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL

{"_index":"sire","_id":"167","_score":null,"_source":{"id":167,"authors_free":[{"id":218,"entry_id":167,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":208,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gill, Mary Louise","free_first_name":"Mary Louise","free_last_name":"Gill","norm_person":{"id":208,"first_name":"Mary Louise ","last_name":"Gill","full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131938045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":219,"entry_id":167,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":209,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Pellegrin","norm_person":{"id":209,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Pellegrin","full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136458742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.\r\nComprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy\r\nIntegrates analytic and continental traditions\r\nExplores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy\r\nIncludes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index","btype":4,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":208,"full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":209,"full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":167,"pubplace":"Malden \u2013 Oxford - Victoria","publisher":"Blackwell Publishers","series":"Blackwell Companions to Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria, 2006
By: Watts, E. J.

Title	City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Berkeley – London – Los Angeles
Publisher	University of California Press
Series	The Joan Palevsky imprint in classical literature 41
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, E. J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This lively and wide-ranging study of the men and ideas of late antique education explores the intellectual and doctrinal milieux in the two great cities of Athens and Alexandria from the second to the sixth centuries to shed new light on the interaction between the pagan cultural legacy and Christianity. While previous scholarship has seen Christian reactions to pagan educational culture as the product of an empire-wide process of development, Edward J. Watts crafts two narratives that reveal how differently education was shaped by the local power structures and urban contexts of each city. Touching on the careers of Herodes Atticus, Proclus, Damascius, Ammonius Saccas, Origen, Hypatia, and Olympiodorus; and events including the Herulian sack of Athens, the closing of the Athenian Neoplatonic school under Justinian, the rise of Arian Christianity, and the sack of the Serapeum, he shows that by the sixth century, Athens and Alexandria had two distinct, locally determined, approaches to pagan teaching that had their roots in the unique historical relationships between city and school.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OpuRY87kdA6jtIi

{"_index":"sire","_id":"193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":193,"authors_free":[{"id":249,"entry_id":193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, E. J.","free_first_name":"E. J.","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria","main_title":{"title":"City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria"},"abstract":"This lively and wide-ranging study of the men and ideas of late antique education explores the intellectual and doctrinal milieux in the two great cities of Athens and Alexandria from the second to the sixth centuries to shed new light on the interaction between the pagan cultural legacy and Christianity. While previous scholarship has seen Christian reactions to pagan educational culture as the product of an empire-wide process of development, Edward J. Watts crafts two narratives that reveal how differently education was shaped by the local power structures and urban contexts of each city. Touching on the careers of Herodes Atticus, Proclus, Damascius, Ammonius Saccas, Origen, Hypatia, and Olympiodorus; and events including the Herulian sack of Athens, the closing of the Athenian Neoplatonic school under Justinian, the rise of Arian Christianity, and the sack of the Serapeum, he shows that by the sixth century, Athens and Alexandria had two distinct, locally determined, approaches to pagan teaching that had their roots in the unique historical relationships between city and school.","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OpuRY87kdA6jtIi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":193,"pubplace":"Berkeley \u2013 London \u2013 Los Angeles","publisher":"University of California Press","series":"The Joan Palevsky imprint in classical literature 41","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

Reading Plato in antiquity, 2006
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)

Title	Reading Plato in antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury Academic
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)

This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PFetB36hpbaF0VD

{"_index":"sire","_id":"196","_score":null,"_source":{"id":196,"authors_free":[{"id":252,"entry_id":196,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":253,"entry_id":196,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Reading Plato in antiquity"},"abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","btype":4,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

De Anima: Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, 2006
By: Salatowsky, Sascha

Title	De Anima: Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2006
Publication Place	Amsterdam
Publisher	B.R. Grüner
Series	Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie
Volume	4
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Salatowsky, Sascha
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle’s On the soul is one of the most important books in the history of philosophy. Its fundamental achievement is based on the ontological-ontical definition of the soul and its virtues, which embrace all living beings, including the doctrine of the mind (nous), and whose further explication has been interpreted controversially since antiquity. With respect to the traditional schools of Alexandrism, Neoplatonism, Averroism and Thomism the present study studies the various philosophical and theological constellations of the 16th and 17th century, which were determined by the intracatholical as well as by the interdenominational controversies between the Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. From this point of view the works of Luther and Melanchthon, of the Renaissance-Aristotelians Portio, Toletus, Zabarella, and the Conimbricenses as well as the works of the Lutheran and Calvinistic Philosophers of the 17th century are interpreted, these last ones being taken into consideration here for the first time. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vPm1T0yGbb0btt1

{"_index":"sire","_id":"208","_score":null,"_source":{"id":208,"authors_free":[{"id":265,"entry_id":208,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":443,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Salatowsky, Sascha","free_first_name":"Sascha","free_last_name":"Salatowsky","norm_person":{"id":443,"first_name":"Sascha","last_name":"Salatowsky","full_name":"Salatowsky, Sascha","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055053654","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"De Anima: Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert","main_title":{"title":"De Anima: Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s On the soul is one of the most important books in the history of philosophy. Its fundamental achievement is based on the ontological-ontical definition of the soul and its virtues, which embrace all living beings, including the doctrine of the mind (nous), and whose further explication has been interpreted controversially since antiquity. With respect to the traditional schools of Alexandrism, Neoplatonism, Averroism and Thomism the present study studies the various philosophical and theological constellations of the 16th and 17th century, which were determined by the intracatholical as well as by the interdenominational controversies between the Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. From this point of view the works of Luther and Melanchthon, of the Renaissance-Aristotelians Portio, Toletus, Zabarella, and the Conimbricenses as well as the works of the Lutheran and Calvinistic Philosophers of the 17th century are interpreted, these last ones being taken into consideration here for the first time. [authors abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vPm1T0yGbb0btt1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":443,"full_name":"Salatowsky, Sascha","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":208,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"B.R. Gr\u00fcner","series":"Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.10-12’, 2006
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.10-12’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hankinson, R. J.(Hankinson, Robert J.) ,

Here is a battle royal between the Neoplatonist Simplicius and the Aristotelian Alexander on the origins, if any, of the universe. A parallel battle had already been conducted by Philoponus and Proclus, arguing that Plato's "Timaeus" gives a beginning to the universe. Simplicius denies this. In the three chapters of On the Heavens dealt with in this volume, Aristotle argues that the universe is ungenerated and indestructible. In Simplicius' commentary, translated here, we see a battle royal between the Neoplatonist Simplicius and the Aristotelian Alexander, whose lost commentary on Aristotle's On the Heavens Simplicius partly preserves. Simplicius' rival, the Christian Philoponus, had conducted a parallel battle in his Against Proclus but had taken the side of Alexander against Proclus and other Platonists, arguing that Plato's Timaeus gives a beginning to the universe. Simplicius takes the Platonist side, denying that Plato intended a beginning. The origin to which Plato refers is, according to Simplicius, not a temporal origin, but the divine cause that produces the world without beginning. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nf0tApGwuiAkDmf

{"_index":"sire","_id":"107","_score":null,"_source":{"id":107,"authors_free":[{"id":127,"entry_id":107,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":168,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hankinson, R. J.","free_first_name":"R. J.","free_last_name":"Hankinson","norm_person":{"id":168,"first_name":"Robert J.","last_name":"Hankinson","full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","short_ident":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129477370","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2246,"entry_id":107,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius, Cilicius","free_first_name":"Cilicius","free_last_name":"Simplicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.10-12\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.10-12\u2019"},"abstract":"Here is a battle royal between the Neoplatonist Simplicius and the Aristotelian Alexander on the origins, if any, of the universe. A parallel battle had already been conducted by Philoponus and Proclus, arguing that Plato's \"Timaeus\" gives a beginning to the universe. Simplicius denies this.\r\nIn the three chapters of On the Heavens dealt with in this volume, Aristotle argues that the universe is ungenerated and indestructible. In Simplicius' commentary, translated here, we see a battle royal between the Neoplatonist Simplicius and the Aristotelian Alexander, whose lost commentary on Aristotle's On the Heavens Simplicius partly preserves. Simplicius' rival, the Christian Philoponus, had conducted a parallel battle in his Against Proclus but had taken the side of Alexander against Proclus and other Platonists, arguing that Plato's Timaeus gives a beginning to the universe. Simplicius takes the Platonist side, denying that Plato intended a beginning. The origin to which Plato refers is, according to Simplicius, not a temporal origin, but the divine cause that produces the world without beginning. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nf0tApGwuiAkDmf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":168,"full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":107,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators, 2006
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Gill, Mary Louise (Ed.), Pellegrin, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	A Companion to Ancient Philosophy
Pages	597-622
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre
Translator(s)

Neoplatonic thought at the end of antiquity - like that of most of the schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period - has an essentially exegetical and scholastic dimension. Beginning with the classical and Hellenistic period, philosophy in Greece is inseparable from the existence of schools (private or public), often organized as places of communal life (sunousia), in which the explication of the texts of the school's founders came to be one of the main activities. The practice of exegesis of written texts supplanted the ancient practice of dialogue. It was sustained through its application to canonical texts, and was put to everyday use in the framework of courses in the explication of texts. The social reality of the school as an institution, with its hierarchy, its diadochos (i.e., the successor to the school’s founder), its structure as a conventicle in which communal life was practiced, its library, its regulation of time, and its programs organized around the reading of canonical texts, constitutes a concrete context into which we should reinsert the practice of exegesis, which is the heart of philosophical pedagogy and the matrix of doctrinal and dogmatic works. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S0TwJW1NoM7Owd5

{"_index":"sire","_id":"503","_score":null,"_source":{"id":503,"authors_free":[{"id":696,"entry_id":503,"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":697,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":208,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gill, Mary Louise","free_first_name":"Mary Louise","free_last_name":"Gill","norm_person":{"id":208,"first_name":"Mary Louise ","last_name":"Gill","full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131938045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":698,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":209,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Pellegrin","norm_person":{"id":209,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Pellegrin","full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136458742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators","main_title":{"title":"What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators"},"abstract":"Neoplatonic thought at the end of antiquity - like that of most of the schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period - has an essentially exegetical and scholastic dimension. Beginning with the classical and Hellenistic period, philosophy in Greece is inseparable from the existence of schools (private or public), often organized as places of com\u00admunal life (sunousia), in which the explication of the texts of the school's founders came to be one of the main activities. The practice of exegesis of written texts supplanted the ancient practice of dialogue. It was sustained through its application to canonical texts, and was put to everyday use in the framework of courses in the explication of texts. The social reality of the school as an institution, with its hierarchy, its diadochos (i.e., the successor to the school\u2019s founder), its structure as a conventicle in which communal life was practiced, its library, its regulation of time, and its programs organ\u00adized around the reading of canonical texts, constitutes a concrete context into which we should reinsert the practice of exegesis, which is the heart of philosophical ped\u00adagogy and the matrix of doctrinal and dogmatic works. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S0TwJW1NoM7Owd5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":208,"full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":209,"full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":503,"section_of":167,"pages":"597-622","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":167,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gill\/Pellegrin2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.\r\nComprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy\r\nIntegrates analytic and continental traditions\r\nExplores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy\r\nIncludes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":167,"pubplace":"Malden \u2013 Oxford - Victoria","publisher":"Blackwell Publishers","series":"Blackwell Companions to Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter ("Physics" IV:2, 209 B 17–32), 2006
By: Fritsche, Johannes

Title	Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter ("Physics" IV:2, 209 B 17–32)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2006
Journal	Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
Volume	48
Pages	45-63
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Fritsche, Johannes
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Physics IV.2, Aristotle argues for private Space of a body as its form (209 b 1-6) and as its matter (209 b 6-11) to conclude that Plato maintains that χώρα, matter, and space are the same (209 b 11-17). Subsequently, he réfutés both possibilities of conceiving Space (209 b 17-28). In a paper on 209 b 6-17,1 have tried to show that his view of Plato is right.1 In this paper, I would like to show that in his réfutation of both possibilities Aristotle argues dialectically in the proper sense; that is, he does not use any assumption that is peculiar to his own theory and not shared by his Opponent. For this purpose I présent (I.) Aristotle's différent usages of (ού) χωρίζεται/χωριστός (»[not] separated/separable«) and (II.) the three différent interprétations of 209 b 22-28 in Philoponus, Simplicius, and Sorabji, and I rule out Sorabji's interprétation. Thereafter, I will give three reasons for Simplicius's interprétation. The first relates to (III.) the issue of prin ciples as the main topic of the Physics in général. Secondly, (IV.) Philoponus's interprétation of 209 b 22-28 contradicts Aristotle's own définition of Space. Thirdly, (V.) only in Simplicius's interprétation is the argument dialectically va lid. Thereafter, I will show (VI.) that the argument in Simplicius's interprétation is conclusive against Plato's reasoning in the Timaeus to finish with (VII.) some général remarks on this paper and the paper on 209 b 1-17. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/We3uupXlF3bVzh0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"592","_score":null,"_source":{"id":592,"authors_free":[{"id":843,"entry_id":592,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":102,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fritsche, Johannes ","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Fritsche","norm_person":{"id":102,"first_name":"Johannes ","last_name":"Fritsche","full_name":"Fritsche, Johannes ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1204083266","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter (\"Physics\" IV:2, 209 B 17\u201332)","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter (\"Physics\" IV:2, 209 B 17\u201332)"},"abstract":"In Physics IV.2, Aristotle argues for private Space of a body as its form (209 b 1-6) and as its matter (209 b 6-11) to conclude that Plato maintains that \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1, matter, and space are the same (209 b 11-17). Subsequently, he r\u00e9fut\u00e9s both possibilities of conceiving Space (209 b 17-28). In a paper on 209 b 6-17,1 have tried to show that his view of Plato is right.1 In this paper, I would like to show that in his r\u00e9futation of both possibilities Aristotle argues dialectically in the proper sense; that is, he does not use any assumption that is peculiar to his own theory and not shared by his Opponent. For this purpose I pr\u00e9sent (I.) Aristotle's diff\u00e9rent usages of (\u03bf\u03cd) \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\/\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 (\u00bb[not] separated\/separable\u00ab) and (II.) the three diff\u00e9rent interpr\u00e9tations of 209 b 22-28 in Philoponus, Simplicius, and Sorabji, and I rule out Sorabji's interpr\u00e9tation. Thereafter, I will give three reasons for Simplicius's interpr\u00e9tation. The first relates to (III.) the issue of prin ciples as the main topic of the Physics in g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. Secondly, (IV.) Philoponus's interpr\u00e9tation of 209 b 22-28 contradicts Aristotle's own d\u00e9finition of Space. Thirdly, (V.) only in Simplicius's interpr\u00e9tation is the argument dialectically va lid. Thereafter, I will show (VI.) that the argument in Simplicius's interpr\u00e9tation is conclusive against Plato's reasoning in the Timaeus to finish with (VII.) some g\u00e9n\u00e9ral remarks on this paper and the paper on 209 b 1-17. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/We3uupXlF3bVzh0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":102,"full_name":"Fritsche, Johannes ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":592,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"48","issue":"","pages":"45-63"}},"sort":[2006]}

The history of astronomy, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid

Title	The history of astronomy
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Pages	228-277
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The History of Astronomy, Eudemus’ last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus’ Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In Aëtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them. Interesting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus’ and Theophrastus’ material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time. Let us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus’ work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate. The number of books in the History of Astronomy (Ἀστρολογικῆς ἱστορίας α'-ς') as given in Theophrastus’ catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus’ theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus’ disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus’ rendering of Callippus’ theory. Hence, Simplicius’ evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus’ work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius’ three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147). All this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus’ work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. As for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius’ predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus’ Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus’ exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus’ works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time. Generally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus’ summary of Posidonius’ Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand! In the case of Eudemus, the commentator’s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus’ theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter’s work is not available (οὔτε δὲ Καλλίππου φέρεται σύγγραμμα), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (Εὔδημος δὲ συντόμως ἱστόρησε). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus’ book, was at Simplicius’ disposal. Further, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then “amplified” him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus. Another possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes’ work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus’ system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted. Hence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions. [introduction p. 228-230]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csHTzFsKJd5J17a

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1426","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1426,"authors_free":[{"id":2237,"entry_id":1426,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of astronomy","main_title":{"title":"The history of astronomy"},"abstract":"The History of Astronomy, Eudemus\u2019 last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus\u2019 Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In A\u00ebtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them.\r\n\r\nInteresting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus\u2019 and Theophrastus\u2019 material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time.\r\n\r\nLet us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus\u2019 work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate.\r\n\r\nThe number of books in the History of Astronomy (\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2') as given in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus\u2019 theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus\u2019 disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 rendering of Callippus\u2019 theory.\r\n\r\nHence, Simplicius\u2019 evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus\u2019 work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius\u2019 three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147).\r\n\r\nAll this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus\u2019 work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out.\r\n\r\nAs for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius\u2019 predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus\u2019 Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus\u2019 works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time.\r\n\r\nGenerally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus\u2019 summary of Posidonius\u2019 Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand!\r\n\r\nIn the case of Eudemus, the commentator\u2019s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus\u2019 theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter\u2019s work is not available (\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (\u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus\u2019 book, was at Simplicius\u2019 disposal.\r\n\r\nFurther, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then \u201camplified\u201d him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus.\r\n\r\nAnother possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes\u2019 work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus\u2019 system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted.\r\n\r\nHence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions.\r\n[introduction p. 228-230]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csHTzFsKJd5J17a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1426,"section_of":1214,"pages":"228-277","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

The history of geometry, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid

Title	The history of geometry
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Pages	166-214
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

We know little about the founder of the historiography of science, Eudemus of Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who considered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Lyceum. We know neither exactly when he was born nor when he joined Aristotle’s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle’s death, he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to study and teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher’s writings (fr. 6). While Eudemus’ Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus’ works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus’ works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener’s suggestion that these were Eudemus’ works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus’ list. In the same list, we find another work, Τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἱστορίας α'-ς', which, contrary to Wehrli’s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus’ History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus’ historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus’ catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus’ physical doxography and Meno’s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle’s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322/1 (Aristotle’s death). The majority of those who have studied Eudemus’ theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter’s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle’s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences. There is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus’ History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity. Although Eudemus’ works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus’ failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed. Meanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature. Eratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus’ theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle’s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius. Thus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1427,"authors_free":[{"id":2238,"entry_id":1427,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of geometry","main_title":{"title":"The history of geometry"},"abstract":"We know little about the founder of the historiography of science, Eudemus of Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who considered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Lyceum. We know neither exactly when he was born nor when he joined Aristotle\u2019s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle\u2019s death, he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to study and teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher\u2019s writings (fr. 6).\r\n\r\nWhile Eudemus\u2019 Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus\u2019 works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus\u2019 works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener\u2019s suggestion that these were Eudemus\u2019 works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus\u2019 list.\r\n\r\nIn the same list, we find another work, \u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2', which, contrary to Wehrli\u2019s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus\u2019 History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus\u2019 historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus\u2019 physical doxography and Meno\u2019s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle\u2019s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335\/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322\/1 (Aristotle\u2019s death).\r\n\r\nThe majority of those who have studied Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter\u2019s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle\u2019s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences.\r\n\r\nThere is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus\u2019 History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity.\r\n\r\nAlthough Eudemus\u2019 works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus\u2019 failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature.\r\n\r\nEratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius.\r\n\r\nThus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1427,"section_of":1214,"pages":"166-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research, 2005
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Studia Humaniora Tartuensia
Volume	6
Issue	6
Pages	1-26
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OYlxoMJYDjcTIPa

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1201","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1201,"authors_free":[{"id":1774,"entry_id":1201,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research","main_title":{"title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research"},"abstract":"In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th\u20133rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OYlxoMJYDjcTIPa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1201,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia Humaniora Tartuensia","volume":"6","issue":"6","pages":"1-26"}},"sort":[2005]}

Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements, 2005
By: Knox, Dilwyn

Title	Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
Volume	68
Pages	157-211
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Knox, Dilwyn
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

What do these ideas tell us about Copernicus the philosopher? He drew on Stoic and, perhaps unknowingly at times, Platonic doctrines of the elements, but he avoided their metaphysical implications. There would have been little point, even if he had been so inclined, in compromising his heliocentric hypothesis, contentious as he knew it was, with suspect doctrines of, say, spiritus and cosmic animation. For three centuries, scholastic theologians and philosophers, despite Aristotle's statements to the contrary, had done their best to de-animate the heavens. Nor, for the same reason, should we think that Neoplatonic sun symbolism was important to him. His brief references to sun symbolism and Hermes Trismegistus take up no more than five or so lines and derive mostly from standard classical sources, including Pliny in a passage immediately following the latter's discussion of gravity. The main problem facing Copernicus was to make the earth move, not to explain why the sun stood at the center. He also consulted doxographical works explaining the many and divergent views of ancient thinkers, for instance, pseudo-Plutarch's Placita philosophorum, Bessarion's In calumniatorem Platonis, and Giorgio Valla's De expetendis. He consulted classical Latin authors like Pliny and Cicero, who, through the endeavors of Renaissance humanists and the agency of the printing press, had become better known during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. His extensive use of Pliny's Natural History, Book II, exemplifies the way in which the latter became a popular source for alternatives to Aristotelian or scholastic natural philosophy during the sixteenth century. The greatest debt, in other words, that Copernicus the cosmologist owed was not to Renaissance Platonism or a revamped Aristotelianism. It was rather to the variety of ancient learning promoted by Renaissance humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. To them he owed not just the wherewithal and encouragement to consult a much wider library of classical authors than his scholastic predecessors were wont to do but also the intellectual flexibility to regard his sources as no more than that—sources for ideas rather than authorities. In this, Copernicus was typical of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century "scientific" thinkers, Galileo included. But Renaissance humanism left its mark in another important respect. Copernicus set himself the task of learning Greek, and this provided him, if the evidence above is to be trusted, with one of his most important cosmological doctrines. [conclusion p. 210-211]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/x8JGitPSYOT3L0a

{"_index":"sire","_id":"736","_score":null,"_source":{"id":736,"authors_free":[{"id":1099,"entry_id":736,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":217,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","free_first_name":"Dilwyn","free_last_name":"Knox","norm_person":{"id":217,"first_name":"Dilwyn","last_name":"Knox","full_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1048420108","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements","main_title":{"title":"Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements"},"abstract":"What do these ideas tell us about Copernicus the philosopher? He drew on Stoic and, perhaps unknowingly at times, Platonic doctrines of the elements, but he avoided their metaphysical implications. There would have been little point, even if he had been so inclined, in compromising his heliocentric hypothesis, contentious as he knew it was, with suspect doctrines of, say, spiritus and cosmic animation. For three centuries, scholastic theologians and philosophers, despite Aristotle's statements to the contrary, had done their best to de-animate the heavens.\r\n\r\nNor, for the same reason, should we think that Neoplatonic sun symbolism was important to him. His brief references to sun symbolism and Hermes Trismegistus take up no more than five or so lines and derive mostly from standard classical sources, including Pliny in a passage immediately following the latter's discussion of gravity. The main problem facing Copernicus was to make the earth move, not to explain why the sun stood at the center.\r\n\r\nHe also consulted doxographical works explaining the many and divergent views of ancient thinkers, for instance, pseudo-Plutarch's Placita philosophorum, Bessarion's In calumniatorem Platonis, and Giorgio Valla's De expetendis. He consulted classical Latin authors like Pliny and Cicero, who, through the endeavors of Renaissance humanists and the agency of the printing press, had become better known during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. His extensive use of Pliny's Natural History, Book II, exemplifies the way in which the latter became a popular source for alternatives to Aristotelian or scholastic natural philosophy during the sixteenth century.\r\n\r\nThe greatest debt, in other words, that Copernicus the cosmologist owed was not to Renaissance Platonism or a revamped Aristotelianism. It was rather to the variety of ancient learning promoted by Renaissance humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. To them he owed not just the wherewithal and encouragement to consult a much wider library of classical authors than his scholastic predecessors were wont to do but also the intellectual flexibility to regard his sources as no more than that\u2014sources for ideas rather than authorities.\r\n\r\nIn this, Copernicus was typical of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century \"scientific\" thinkers, Galileo included. But Renaissance humanism left its mark in another important respect. Copernicus set himself the task of learning Greek, and this provided him, if the evidence above is to be trusted, with one of his most important cosmological doctrines. [conclusion p. 210-211]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8JGitPSYOT3L0a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":217,"full_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":736,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes","volume":"68","issue":"","pages":"157-211"}},"sort":[2005]}

Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism, 2005
By: Siniossoglou, Nikētas

Title	Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	KronoScope
Volume	5
Issue	2
Pages	213-235
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Siniossoglou, Nikētas
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper focuses on the late antique conception of time, eternity and perpetual duration and examines the relation between these concepts and Plato’s cosmology. By exploring the controversy between pagan philosophers (Proclus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus) and Christian writers (Aeneas of Gaza, Zacharias of Mytilene, Philoponus) in respect to the interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus, I argue that the Neoplatonic doctrine of the perpetuity (ἀïδιότης) of the world derives from a) the intellectual paradigm presupposed by the conceptual framework of late antiquity and b) the commentators’ principal concern for a coherent conception of Platonic cosmology essentially free from internal contradictions. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/a8bG1lq3yiz1Bl1

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1017","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1017,"authors_free":[{"id":1533,"entry_id":1017,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":319,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Siniossoglou, Nik\u0113tas","free_first_name":"Nik\u0113tas","free_last_name":"Siniossoglou","norm_person":{"id":319,"first_name":"Nik\u0113tas","last_name":"Siniossoglou","full_name":"Siniossoglou, Nik\u0113tas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1116027585","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism","main_title":{"title":"Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on the late antique conception of time, eternity and perpetual duration and examines the relation between these concepts and Plato\u2019s cosmology. By exploring the controversy between pagan philosophers (Proclus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus) and Christian writers (Aeneas of Gaza, Zacharias of Mytilene, Philoponus) in respect to the interpretation of Plato\u2019s Timaeus, I argue that the Neoplatonic doctrine of the perpetuity (\u1f00\u00ef\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) of the world derives from a) the intellectual paradigm presupposed by the conceptual framework of late antiquity and b) the commentators\u2019 principal concern for a coherent conception of Platonic cosmology essentially free from internal contradictions. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/a8bG1lq3yiz1Bl1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":319,"full_name":"Siniossoglou, Nik\u0113tas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1017,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"KronoScope","volume":"5","issue":"2","pages":"213-235"}},"sort":[2005]}

Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos, 2005
By: Scholten, Clemens

Title	Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2005
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	148
Issue	2
Pages	202-219
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Scholten, Clemens
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi (aetm.) des Johannes Philoponos aus der Zeit bald nach 529 n. Chr. gibt es, über eine Reihe von bereits näher beleuchteten Quellen und doxographischen Nachrichten hinaus, eine größere Anzahl von bisher unbeachteten doxographischen Materialien, Paraphrasen und/oder Zitaten aus verlorenen Schriften antiker Autoren. Unter quellenkritischen und doxographischen Gesichtspunkten im engeren Sinn ist aetm. noch nicht eigens untersucht worden. Das wird sicherlich damit zu tun haben, dass die Erforschung der doxographischen Überlieferung vor gut hundert Jahren ihren Schwerpunkt auf die vorplatonische Tradition setzte und unter diesem Gesichtspunkt aetm. offenbar zu vernachlässigen glaubte, zumal H. Rabe als Herausgeber von aetm. in seinen Fußnoten die Textnachweise aus den großen Dichtern und Philosophen wie Homer, Platon, Aristoteles, Plotin usw., soweit möglich, zuverlässig geführt hat. Möglicherweise ist daran auch die Einschätzung des letzten Rezensenten der Rabeschen Edition aus dem Jahre 1901 nicht unbeteiligt, der aetm. für unergiebig im Hinblick auf verlorene Quellen hielt und meinte, aetm. habe lediglich bekanntes Material zu bieten. Aber es gab damals schon andere Stimmen. Bemerkenswerterweise hatte ein Jahr zuvor Wendland in seiner Rezension anders geurteilt. Ebenso forderte Gudeman in seinem RE-Artikel „Johannes Philoponos“ aus dem Jahre 1915 die Aufarbeitung der Quellenfrage. Bei diesem Desiderat ist es allerdings bis heute geblieben. In größerem Umfang sind lediglich die Teile des Quellenmaterials aus aetm. behandelt worden, die für die Timaios-Kommentierung in der Zeit vor Proklos von Belang sind. Es handelt sich besonders um Texte aus den Timaios-Kommentaren des Calvisios Tauros und Porphyrios, die im Rahmen der Sichtung der erhaltenen Stücke aus dem Timaios-Kommentar des Porphyrios zusammengestellt wurden oder bei der Untersuchung der Weltentstehungslehren, wie sie im Rahmen der Exegese des Timaios entwickelt wurden, behandelt worden sind. Auf Proklos-Texte hat Beutler in seinem RE-Artikel hingewiesen, allerdings einiges übersehen. Bereits verifiziert sind ein Zitat aus dem fünften Buch des Timaios-Kommentars des Proklos in aetm. 9,11 (364,5–365,3), die von Johannes Philoponos häufig erwähnte, paraphrasierte oder zitierte Schrift des Proklos Untersuchung der Einwände des Aristoteles gegen den platonischen Timaios (Ἐπἱσκέψις τῶν πρὸς τὸν Πλάτωνος Τίμαιον ὑπὸ Ἀριστοτέλους ἀντιρρηθέντων oder Ὁ ὑπὲρ τοῦ Τιμαίου πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην λόγος), die Proklos in seinem Timaios-Kommentar selbst erwähnt und die daher älter als der Kommentar sein dürfte, sowie die Proklos-Schrift Zehn Aporien hinsichtlich der Vorsehung, die Beutler als erster kurz vorgestellt hat und die Boese, Dornseiff und Feldbusch zu größeren Teilen in Texten späterer Autoren wiedergefunden haben. Ein längeres Zitat aus Galens Schrift Über den Beweis ist schon zwei Jahre, bevor Rabe aetm. ediert hat, notiert worden. Eine vollständige Sichtung und Zusammenstellung aller in aetm. benutzten Quellen und doxographischen Nachrichten gibt es bis jetzt nicht. Die unbeachteten Quellenstücke und doxographischen Nachrichten, die bei der Arbeit an der Übersetzung von aetm. auffielen, sollen im Folgenden vorgestellt werden. [introduction p. 202-204]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9laXIov8GbXAA3T

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1034","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1034,"authors_free":[{"id":1565,"entry_id":1034,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":286,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Scholten, Clemens","free_first_name":"Clemens","free_last_name":"Scholten","norm_person":{"id":286,"first_name":"Clemens","last_name":"Scholten","full_name":"Scholten, Clemens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115572538","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos","main_title":{"title":"Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos"},"abstract":"In der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi (aetm.) des Johannes Philoponos aus der Zeit bald nach 529 n. Chr. gibt es, \u00fcber eine Reihe von bereits n\u00e4her beleuchteten Quellen und doxographischen Nachrichten hinaus, eine gr\u00f6\u00dfere Anzahl von bisher unbeachteten doxographischen Materialien, Paraphrasen und\/oder Zitaten aus verlorenen Schriften antiker Autoren. Unter quellenkritischen und doxographischen Gesichtspunkten im engeren Sinn ist aetm. noch nicht eigens untersucht worden. Das wird sicherlich damit zu tun haben, dass die Erforschung der doxographischen \u00dcberlieferung vor gut hundert Jahren ihren Schwerpunkt auf die vorplatonische Tradition setzte und unter diesem Gesichtspunkt aetm. offenbar zu vernachl\u00e4ssigen glaubte, zumal H. Rabe als Herausgeber von aetm. in seinen Fu\u00dfnoten die Textnachweise aus den gro\u00dfen Dichtern und Philosophen wie Homer, Platon, Aristoteles, Plotin usw., soweit m\u00f6glich, zuverl\u00e4ssig gef\u00fchrt hat.\r\n\r\nM\u00f6glicherweise ist daran auch die Einsch\u00e4tzung des letzten Rezensenten der Rabeschen Edition aus dem Jahre 1901 nicht unbeteiligt, der aetm. f\u00fcr unergiebig im Hinblick auf verlorene Quellen hielt und meinte, aetm. habe lediglich bekanntes Material zu bieten.\r\n\r\nAber es gab damals schon andere Stimmen. Bemerkenswerterweise hatte ein Jahr zuvor Wendland in seiner Rezension anders geurteilt. Ebenso forderte Gudeman in seinem RE-Artikel \u201eJohannes Philoponos\u201c aus dem Jahre 1915 die Aufarbeitung der Quellenfrage. Bei diesem Desiderat ist es allerdings bis heute geblieben.\r\n\r\nIn gr\u00f6\u00dferem Umfang sind lediglich die Teile des Quellenmaterials aus aetm. behandelt worden, die f\u00fcr die Timaios-Kommentierung in der Zeit vor Proklos von Belang sind. Es handelt sich besonders um Texte aus den Timaios-Kommentaren des Calvisios Tauros und Porphyrios, die im Rahmen der Sichtung der erhaltenen St\u00fccke aus dem Timaios-Kommentar des Porphyrios zusammengestellt wurden oder bei der Untersuchung der Weltentstehungslehren, wie sie im Rahmen der Exegese des Timaios entwickelt wurden, behandelt worden sind.\r\n\r\nAuf Proklos-Texte hat Beutler in seinem RE-Artikel hingewiesen, allerdings einiges \u00fcbersehen. Bereits verifiziert sind ein Zitat aus dem f\u00fcnften Buch des Timaios-Kommentars des Proklos in aetm. 9,11 (364,5\u2013365,3), die von Johannes Philoponos h\u00e4ufig erw\u00e4hnte, paraphrasierte oder zitierte Schrift des Proklos Untersuchung der Einw\u00e4nde des Aristoteles gegen den platonischen Timaios (\u1f18\u03c0\u1f31\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd oder \u1f49 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), die Proklos in seinem Timaios-Kommentar selbst erw\u00e4hnt und die daher \u00e4lter als der Kommentar sein d\u00fcrfte, sowie die Proklos-Schrift Zehn Aporien hinsichtlich der Vorsehung, die Beutler als erster kurz vorgestellt hat und die Boese, Dornseiff und Feldbusch zu gr\u00f6\u00dferen Teilen in Texten sp\u00e4terer Autoren wiedergefunden haben.\r\n\r\nEin l\u00e4ngeres Zitat aus Galens Schrift \u00dcber den Beweis ist schon zwei Jahre, bevor Rabe aetm. ediert hat, notiert worden. Eine vollst\u00e4ndige Sichtung und Zusammenstellung aller in aetm. benutzten Quellen und doxographischen Nachrichten gibt es bis jetzt nicht.\r\n\r\nDie unbeachteten Quellenst\u00fccke und doxographischen Nachrichten, die bei der Arbeit an der \u00dcbersetzung von aetm. auffielen, sollen im Folgenden vorgestellt werden. [introduction p. 202-204]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9laXIov8GbXAA3T","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":286,"full_name":"Scholten, Clemens","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1034,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"148","issue":"2","pages":"202-219"}},"sort":[2005]}

Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus, 2005
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume	58
Issue	4
Pages	510-530
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- mentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BTWKXjso1hvwiLb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1086","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1086,"authors_free":[{"id":1642,"entry_id":1086,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus"},"abstract":"It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- \r\nmentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BTWKXjso1hvwiLb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1086,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"58","issue":"4","pages":"510-530"}},"sort":[2005]}

L'écriture et les Présocratiques: Analyse de l'interprétation de Eric Havelock, 2005
By: Palù, Chiara

Title	L'écriture et les Présocratiques: Analyse de l'interprétation de Eric Havelock
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2005
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	23
Issue	2
Pages	75-92
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Palù, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L'interprétation de Havelock situe les penseurs présocratiques, ou plutôt pré-platoniciens, dans un milieu qu'il définit comme étant antérieur à la diffusion de l'écriture (pre-literacy). Cette interprétation provient de sa thèse générale, qui concerne la question du passage entre l'oralité et l'écriture en Grèce ancienne. Si l'introduction de l'alphabet phénicien, à l'époque archaïque, entraîne l'abandon des systèmes de communication orale, fondés sur l'écoute et la mémorisation, au profit de nouveaux systèmes fondés sur la circulation et la lecture individuelle de textes écrits, ce passage ne s'effectue cependant pas d'un seul coup. En dépit de l'introduction de l'écriture, continuent de subsister, pendant presque toute l'époque archaïque, des mécanismes de performance orale, tandis que l'écriture, à son début, n'avait qu'une seule fonction, celle de fixer la parole. Havelock, pour soutenir sa thèse, s'appuie initialement sur le Phèdre de Platon. La réflexion de Platon, qui, du reste, n'est pas isolée, est perçue comme une sorte de prise de conscience de problématiques préexistantes, au terme d'un processus de mutation culturelle dans lequel l'écriture joue un rôle déterminant. La critique de l'écriture, en effet, peut être définie comme une dernière défense de la parole orale à une époque où l'écrit prédomine désormais. C'est en un second temps que Havelock s'est tourné vers les textes des présocratiques eux-mêmes. Il est vrai que dans la tradition pré-platonicienne, il n'existe pas de texte comme le Phèdre, qui thématise la question de l'écriture, mais, d'après Havelock, on peut repérer, dans les textes des présocratiques, les traces des structures orales qui avaient caractérisé la phase précédant la réintroduction de l'écriture. Havelock souligne surtout l'adoption de la métrique et du rythme dans les poèmes d'Empédocle, Xénophane et Parménide, et le recours à une prose poétique dans le discours d'Héraclite, en tant qu'éléments qui devaient faciliter la mémorisation pour un public d'auditeurs. Mais l'approche de Havelock n'est pas seulement stylistique. La diffusion progressive, à l'époque archaïque, de la literacy aux dépens de l'oralité requiert l'adoption d'un nouveau langage, qui prend ses distances par rapport au langage mythique et détermine ainsi l'émergence de la philosophie elle-même. Selon Havelock, c'est justement cette relation que Platon n'a pas vue, et c'est de là que provient le caractère contradictoire de sa critique à l'égard de l'écriture. La thèse de Havelock n'a pas manqué de susciter des réactions parmi les interprètes, en produisant, ces dernières années, une quantité remarquable d'études consacrées à ce sujet. En général, les interprètes ont analysé surtout la relation supposée entre le langage des présocratiques et l'écriture, d'une part, et celle entre l'écriture et l'émergence de la philosophie, d'autre part. La réflexion sur le langage devrait, en effet, renforcer la thèse de Havelock à l'égard de la permanence de structures orales dans les textes des présocratiques, et cette permanence devrait, à son tour, renforcer le rapport reconstitué par Havelock entre écriture et émergence de la philosophie. Mais l'analyse stylistique, à elle seule, ne permet pas de conclure à la permanence de structures orales, et ces dernières sont tout aussi peu concluantes en tant qu'arguments à l'appui du rapport supposé entre écriture et émergence de la philosophie. [introduction p. 75-77]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qlp5mJ4QSDQl1a0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1091","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1091,"authors_free":[{"id":1649,"entry_id":1091,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":281,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Pal\u00f9, Chiara","free_first_name":"Chiara","free_last_name":"Pal\u00f9","norm_person":{"id":281,"first_name":"Chiara","last_name":"Pal\u00f9","full_name":"Pal\u00f9, Chiara","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'\u00e9criture et les Pr\u00e9socratiques: Analyse de l'interpr\u00e9tation de Eric Havelock","main_title":{"title":"L'\u00e9criture et les Pr\u00e9socratiques: Analyse de l'interpr\u00e9tation de Eric Havelock"},"abstract":"L'interpr\u00e9tation de Havelock situe les penseurs pr\u00e9socratiques, ou plut\u00f4t pr\u00e9-platoniciens, dans un milieu qu'il d\u00e9finit comme \u00e9tant ant\u00e9rieur \u00e0 la diffusion de l'\u00e9criture (pre-literacy). Cette interpr\u00e9tation provient de sa th\u00e8se g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, qui concerne la question du passage entre l'oralit\u00e9 et l'\u00e9criture en Gr\u00e8ce ancienne.\r\n\r\nSi l'introduction de l'alphabet ph\u00e9nicien, \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque archa\u00efque, entra\u00eene l'abandon des syst\u00e8mes de communication orale, fond\u00e9s sur l'\u00e9coute et la m\u00e9morisation, au profit de nouveaux syst\u00e8mes fond\u00e9s sur la circulation et la lecture individuelle de textes \u00e9crits, ce passage ne s'effectue cependant pas d'un seul coup. En d\u00e9pit de l'introduction de l'\u00e9criture, continuent de subsister, pendant presque toute l'\u00e9poque archa\u00efque, des m\u00e9canismes de performance orale, tandis que l'\u00e9criture, \u00e0 son d\u00e9but, n'avait qu'une seule fonction, celle de fixer la parole.\r\n\r\nHavelock, pour soutenir sa th\u00e8se, s'appuie initialement sur le Ph\u00e8dre de Platon. La r\u00e9flexion de Platon, qui, du reste, n'est pas isol\u00e9e, est per\u00e7ue comme une sorte de prise de conscience de probl\u00e9matiques pr\u00e9existantes, au terme d'un processus de mutation culturelle dans lequel l'\u00e9criture joue un r\u00f4le d\u00e9terminant. La critique de l'\u00e9criture, en effet, peut \u00eatre d\u00e9finie comme une derni\u00e8re d\u00e9fense de la parole orale \u00e0 une \u00e9poque o\u00f9 l'\u00e9crit pr\u00e9domine d\u00e9sormais.\r\n\r\nC'est en un second temps que Havelock s'est tourn\u00e9 vers les textes des pr\u00e9socratiques eux-m\u00eames. Il est vrai que dans la tradition pr\u00e9-platonicienne, il n'existe pas de texte comme le Ph\u00e8dre, qui th\u00e9matise la question de l'\u00e9criture, mais, d'apr\u00e8s Havelock, on peut rep\u00e9rer, dans les textes des pr\u00e9socratiques, les traces des structures orales qui avaient caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 la phase pr\u00e9c\u00e9dant la r\u00e9introduction de l'\u00e9criture.\r\n\r\nHavelock souligne surtout l'adoption de la m\u00e9trique et du rythme dans les po\u00e8mes d'Emp\u00e9docle, X\u00e9nophane et Parm\u00e9nide, et le recours \u00e0 une prose po\u00e9tique dans le discours d'H\u00e9raclite, en tant qu'\u00e9l\u00e9ments qui devaient faciliter la m\u00e9morisation pour un public d'auditeurs. Mais l'approche de Havelock n'est pas seulement stylistique.\r\n\r\nLa diffusion progressive, \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque archa\u00efque, de la literacy aux d\u00e9pens de l'oralit\u00e9 requiert l'adoption d'un nouveau langage, qui prend ses distances par rapport au langage mythique et d\u00e9termine ainsi l'\u00e9mergence de la philosophie elle-m\u00eame. Selon Havelock, c'est justement cette relation que Platon n'a pas vue, et c'est de l\u00e0 que provient le caract\u00e8re contradictoire de sa critique \u00e0 l'\u00e9gard de l'\u00e9criture.\r\n\r\nLa th\u00e8se de Havelock n'a pas manqu\u00e9 de susciter des r\u00e9actions parmi les interpr\u00e8tes, en produisant, ces derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es, une quantit\u00e9 remarquable d'\u00e9tudes consacr\u00e9es \u00e0 ce sujet.\r\n\r\nEn g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, les interpr\u00e8tes ont analys\u00e9 surtout la relation suppos\u00e9e entre le langage des pr\u00e9socratiques et l'\u00e9criture, d'une part, et celle entre l'\u00e9criture et l'\u00e9mergence de la philosophie, d'autre part. La r\u00e9flexion sur le langage devrait, en effet, renforcer la th\u00e8se de Havelock \u00e0 l'\u00e9gard de la permanence de structures orales dans les textes des pr\u00e9socratiques, et cette permanence devrait, \u00e0 son tour, renforcer le rapport reconstitu\u00e9 par Havelock entre \u00e9criture et \u00e9mergence de la philosophie.\r\n\r\nMais l'analyse stylistique, \u00e0 elle seule, ne permet pas de conclure \u00e0 la permanence de structures orales, et ces derni\u00e8res sont tout aussi peu concluantes en tant qu'arguments \u00e0 l'appui du rapport suppos\u00e9 entre \u00e9criture et \u00e9mergence de la philosophie. [introduction p. 75-77]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qlp5mJ4QSDQl1a0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":281,"full_name":"Pal\u00f9, Chiara","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1091,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"23","issue":"2","pages":"75-92"}},"sort":[2005]}

Échelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les stoïciens, 2005
By: Bénatoui͏̈l, Thomas

Title	Échelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les stoïciens
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2005
Journal	Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale
Volume	4
Pages	537-556
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bénatoui͏̈l, Thomas
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The stoic scala naturae was based, among other things, on a division of natural movements, which this paper studies in order to understand the way in which stoicism approached Nature and its empirical diversity. First, I argue against David Hahm's interpretation that movement «through» (dia) oneself is not on a par with the other natural movements: far from being specific to stones or elements, it designates the movement which is specifically produced by the nature of a thing or being. The aristotelian and stoic analysis of self-movement are then shown to share their basic principles but to lead to diverging approaches of Nature: whereas Aristotle looks for the origin and causes of natural movements, the Stoics offer a taxonomy of visible movements. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FNx2a2OooxZH2YG

{"_index":"sire","_id":"832","_score":null,"_source":{"id":832,"authors_free":[{"id":1236,"entry_id":832,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":414,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l","norm_person":{"id":414,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l","full_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143798405","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00c9chelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les sto\u00efciens","main_title":{"title":"\u00c9chelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les sto\u00efciens"},"abstract":"The stoic scala naturae was based, among other things, on a division of natural movements, which this paper studies in order to understand the way in which stoicism approached Nature and its empirical diversity. First, I argue against David Hahm's interpretation that movement \u00abthrough\u00bb (dia) oneself is not on a par with the other natural movements: far from being specific to stones or elements, it designates the movement which is specifically produced by the nature of a thing or being. The aristotelian and stoic analysis of self-movement are then shown to share their basic principles but to lead to diverging approaches of Nature: whereas Aristotle looks for the origin and causes of natural movements, the Stoics offer a taxonomy of visible movements. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FNx2a2OooxZH2YG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":414,"full_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l, Thomas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":832,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de M\u00e9taphysique et de Morale","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"537-556"}},"sort":[2005]}

Movers and Shakers, 2005
By: Lane Fox, Robin, Smith, Andrew (Ed.)

Title	Movers and Shakers
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown
Pages	19-50
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lane Fox, Robin
Editor(s)	Smith, Andrew
Translator(s)

In late antiquity, as in all other periods, philosophy had the power to change a person’s choice of life and scale of values. The ‘shakers’ of my title are people who passed on this sort of impact to others. Philosophy, including Platonist philosophy, also addressed the intellectual’s relation to contemporary society. If that society was incurably misguided, then the philosopher might have no option except to leave it. In late antiquity, some took this option, and they are my ‘movers’. Both the ‘shakers’ and the ‘movers’ need to be understood in terms of the philosophy they professed, but a sufficient understanding of their actions does not require a deep analysis of their deepest thoughts. They are within a historian’s grasp, and so I will discuss individuals, their texts and contexts without a close reading of particular arguments. [Introduction, p. 19]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8VcnG6x2IAjup1i

{"_index":"sire","_id":"881","_score":null,"_source":{"id":881,"authors_free":[{"id":1294,"entry_id":881,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":231,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","free_first_name":"Robin","free_last_name":"Lane Fox","norm_person":{"id":231,"first_name":"Robin","last_name":"Lane Fox","full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128980869","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1295,"entry_id":881,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Movers and Shakers","main_title":{"title":"Movers and Shakers"},"abstract":"In late antiquity, as in all other periods, philosophy had the power to \r\nchange a person\u2019s choice of life and scale of values. The \u2018shakers\u2019 of my \r\ntitle are people who passed on this sort of impact to others. Philosophy, \r\nincluding Platonist philosophy, also addressed the intellectual\u2019s relation \r\nto contemporary society. If that society was incurably misguided, then \r\nthe philosopher might have no option except to leave it. In late antiquity, \r\nsome took this option, and they are my \u2018movers\u2019. Both the \u2018shakers\u2019 and the \r\n\u2018movers\u2019 need to be understood in terms of the philosophy they professed, \r\nbut a sufficient understanding of their actions does not require a deep \r\nanalysis of their deepest thoughts. They are within a historian\u2019s grasp, and \r\nso I will discuss individuals, their texts and contexts without a close reading \r\nof particular arguments. [Introduction, p. 19]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8VcnG6x2IAjup1i","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":231,"full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":881,"section_of":266,"pages":"19-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":266,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Smith2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers', 2005
By: Lane Fox, Robin, Smith, Andrew (Ed.)

Title	Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown
Pages	231-244
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lane Fox, Robin
Editor(s)	Smith, Andrew
Translator(s)

Since 1986, in a series of wide-ranging studies, M. Tardieu has argued that the ‘Seven philosophers who went East when the Athens Academy closed settled down at Harran (Carrhae) in northern Syria. The town was a famous bastion of pagan cult (we can usefully contrast its neighbour, perhaps its rival, the stridently Christian Edessa: Green 1992, 44-94; Segal 1970). Furthermore, he believes, a (neo)Platonic seat of philosophical teaching persisted in Harran into the ninth/tenth centuries ad, being sustained in the wake of the émigrés’ presence. Its participants presented themselves as the ‘Sabians’, the enigmatic group who had been favourably mentioned in the Koran. They then led the renewed prominence of Platonist philosophy in the Abbasid era which is visible to us in the ninth-tenth centuries. This theory of a long Platonist ‘survival’ has not exactly endeared itself to experts in early Islamic philosophy (e.g. Gutas 1994, 4943; Endress 1991, 133-7; Lameer 1997), but it has been enthusiastically received by one or two writers on late antiquity: P. Chuvin (1990), I. Hadot (1996, who was first attracted by support for her studies of Simplicius, his text and Manichaeism) and P. Athanassiadi (1993, 29) who made it the final flourish of a long article on late pagan philosophy: ‘it was thanks to the stepping-stone of Harran and to Damascius’ inspired decisiveness [in settling in Harran] that Neoplatonic theology reached Baghdad by a clearly definable - if not direct — route from Athens’. I wish to restate why it did nothing of the sort. [introduction, p. 231]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EVFox3CG77HUjPw

{"_index":"sire","_id":"882","_score":null,"_source":{"id":882,"authors_free":[{"id":1296,"entry_id":882,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":231,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","free_first_name":"Robin","free_last_name":"Lane Fox","norm_person":{"id":231,"first_name":"Robin","last_name":"Lane Fox","full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128980869","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1297,"entry_id":882,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'","main_title":{"title":"Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'"},"abstract":"Since 1986, in a series of wide-ranging studies, M. Tardieu has argued that the \u2018Seven philosophers who went East when the Athens Academy closed settled down at Harran (Carrhae) in northern Syria. The town was a famous bastion of pagan cult (we can usefully contrast its neighbour, perhaps its rival, the stridently Christian Edessa: Green 1992, 44-94; Segal 1970). Furthermore, he believes, a (neo)Platonic seat of philosophical teaching persisted in Harran into the ninth\/tenth centuries ad, being sustained in the wake of the \u00e9migr\u00e9s\u2019 presence. Its participants presented themselves as \r\nthe \u2018Sabians\u2019, the enigmatic group who had been favourably mentioned in the Koran. They then led the renewed prominence of Platonist philosophy in the Abbasid era which is visible to us in the ninth-tenth centuries. This theory of a long Platonist \u2018survival\u2019 has not exactly endeared itself to experts in early Islamic philosophy (e.g. Gutas 1994, 4943; Endress 1991, 133-7; Lameer 1997), but it has been enthusiastically received by one or two writers on late antiquity: P. Chuvin (1990), I. Hadot (1996, who was first attracted by support for her studies of Simplicius, his text and Manichaeism) and P. Athanassiadi (1993, 29) who made it the final flourish of a long article on late pagan philosophy: \u2018it was thanks to the stepping-stone of Harran and to Damascius\u2019 inspired decisiveness [in settling in Harran] that Neoplatonic theology reached Baghdad by a clearly definable - if not direct \u2014 route from Athens\u2019. I wish to restate why it did nothing of the sort. [introduction, p. 231]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EVFox3CG77HUjPw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":231,"full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":882,"section_of":266,"pages":"231-244","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":266,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Smith2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown, 2005
By: Smith, Andrew (Ed.)

Title	The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Oakville
Publisher	The Classical Press of Wales
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Smith, Andrew
Translator(s)

The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"266","_score":null,"_source":{"id":266,"authors_free":[{"id":2060,"entry_id":266,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","main_title":{"title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown"},"abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers, 2005
By: Pierrēs, Apostolos L. (Ed.)

Title	The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Patras
Publisher	Institut for Philosophical Research
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Pierrēs, Apostolos L.
Translator(s)

Review by Jenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles’ poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle’s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles’ cycle. As a whole, the book’s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of ‘Strife’. This ‘Strife’ is not, however, Empedocles’ cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic. In general, editing seems to have been rather ‘hands off’. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles’ cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as ‘probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work’ (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into. Anthony Kenny’s ‘Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition’ offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles’ reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold’s ‘Empedocles on Etna’. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold’s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although ‘Empedocles on Etna’ may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: ‘Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born’ (30). Glenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche’s Empedocles in his ‘The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles’. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles ‘played quite a significant role in Nietzsche’s intellectual world’ (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was ‘far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being’ (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as ‘der reine tragische Mensch’, that, perhaps under the influence of Hölderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius’ account). In ‘Empedocles: two theologies, two projects’, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles’ physical and ethical theories. He interprets ‘The Origins’ and ‘The Purifications’ as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that ‘[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference’ (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 ‘extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus’ (62). Rene Nünlist’s ‘Poetological imagery in Empedocles’ considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8’s κόμος ἐπέων in Empedocles B17’s λόγου στόλος. Nünlist argues that Empedocles’ ‘poetological imagery’ is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to ‘convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method’ (79). Nünlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus. Richard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his ‘Empedocles’ Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction’. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles’ physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko’s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles’ Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests ‘at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet’ (113). In ‘On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles’, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the ‘one poem or two?’ question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles’ ‘esoteric’ and ‘exoteric’ teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural ‘you’, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any ‘serious teaching’ (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd’s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that ‘one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge’ (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd’s Baconian Empedocles ‘sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world’ (153). Richard McKirahan’s ‘Assertion and argument in Empedocles’ cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?’ offers a subtle and stimulating survey of ‘the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief’ (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes’s assertion that those reading his cosmology ‘look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.’2 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles’ debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, ‘Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses’ (183). Apostolos Pierris argues for a ‘tripartite correspondence’ (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his ‘ Ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ and Δίνη : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.’ Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles’ thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle’s critique along the way. He concludes that ‘in understanding Empedocles’ system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other’ (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status. In ‘The topology and dynamics of Empedocles’ cycle’, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O’Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called ‘Oscillation Theory’ makes the most sense of Empedocles’ use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles’ Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis. Oliver Primavesi’s ‘The structure of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous’ also has in its sights O’Brien’s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that ‘O’Brien’s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is […] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1′ (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O’Brien’s alternations and which were ‘composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open’ (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia. André Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles’ cosmology and demonology in his ‘Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles’. He champions a ‘correspondence model’ of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that ‘we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle’ and, further, that ‘although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity’ (267). Cosmic ‘necessity’ is absolute, whilst demonic ‘Necessity’ is hypothetical. In ‘Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles’ cosmic cycle’, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of ‘mechanical and deterministic’ reading of Empedocles’ cycle which, by imposing ‘fixed periods between regular recurring events […] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance’ (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles’ Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles’ daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115’s ‘oracle of necessity’ and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to ‘set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven’ (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia. Angelo Tonelli’s ‘Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles’ fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9′ is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles’ ‘initiation poems’ and the ‘oriental spiritual tradition’. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles’ mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles’ wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. ‘But this’, Tonelli asserts, ‘is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism’ (330). David Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles’ double zoogony in his ‘Empedocles’ life cycles’. He argues against the reading that places Love’s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy ‘accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history […] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it’ (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. ‘Love’s zoogony was itself located in our world’ (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love’s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife’s ‘discordant anthropogony’ (355) results in ‘wretched race of men and women […] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them’ (347). In ‘Empedocles’ zoogony and embryology’, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife’s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, ‘suffocated’ by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife’s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for ‘he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated’ (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles’ double zoogony as ‘repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo’ (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles’ theory of the transmigration of souls. I can’t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration ‘The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought’ (407). Had the book’s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TxAm4obxbTupTry

{"_index":"sire","_id":"317","_score":null,"_source":{"id":317,"authors_free":[{"id":400,"entry_id":317,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":204,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","free_first_name":"Apostolos L.","free_last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":204,"first_name":"Apostolos L.","last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1034968068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers","main_title":{"title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers"},"abstract":"Review by\r\nJenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles\u2019 poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle\u2019s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 cycle. As a whole, the book\u2019s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of \u2018Strife\u2019. This \u2018Strife\u2019 is not, however, Empedocles\u2019 cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic.\r\n\r\nIn general, editing seems to have been rather \u2018hands off\u2019. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as \u2018probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work\u2019 (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.\r\n\r\nAnthony Kenny\u2019s \u2018Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition\u2019 offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles\u2019 reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold\u2019s \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold\u2019s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019 may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: \u2018Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born\u2019 (30).\r\n\r\nGlenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche\u2019s Empedocles in his \u2018The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles\u2019. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles \u2018played quite a significant role in Nietzsche\u2019s intellectual world\u2019 (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was \u2018far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being\u2019 (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as \u2018der reine tragische Mensch\u2019, that, perhaps under the influence of H\u00f6lderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius\u2019 account).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles: two theologies, two projects\u2019, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles\u2019 physical and ethical theories. He interprets \u2018The Origins\u2019 and \u2018The Purifications\u2019 as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that \u2018[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference\u2019 (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 \u2018extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus\u2019 (62).\r\n\r\nRene N\u00fcnlist\u2019s \u2018Poetological imagery in Empedocles\u2019 considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8\u2019s \u03ba\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f73\u03c9\u03bd in Empedocles B17\u2019s \u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. N\u00fcnlist argues that Empedocles\u2019 \u2018poetological imagery\u2019 is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to \u2018convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method\u2019 (79). N\u00fcnlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.\r\n\r\nRichard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction\u2019. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles\u2019 physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko\u2019s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles\u2019 Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests \u2018at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet\u2019 (113).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles\u2019, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the \u2018one poem or two?\u2019 question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018esoteric\u2019 and \u2018exoteric\u2019 teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural \u2018you\u2019, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any \u2018serious teaching\u2019 (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd\u2019s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that \u2018one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge\u2019 (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd\u2019s Baconian Empedocles \u2018sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world\u2019 (153).\r\n\r\nRichard McKirahan\u2019s \u2018Assertion and argument in Empedocles\u2019 cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?\u2019 offers a subtle and stimulating survey of \u2018the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief\u2019 (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes\u2019s assertion that those reading his cosmology \u2018look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.\u20192 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles\u2019 debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, \u2018Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses\u2019 (183).\r\n\r\nApostolos Pierris argues for a \u2018tripartite correspondence\u2019 (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his \u2018 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1f77\u1ff3 and \u0394\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7 : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.\u2019 Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles\u2019 thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle\u2019s critique along the way. He concludes that \u2018in understanding Empedocles\u2019 system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other\u2019 (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018The topology and dynamics of Empedocles\u2019 cycle\u2019, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O\u2019Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called \u2018Oscillation Theory\u2019 makes the most sense of Empedocles\u2019 use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles\u2019 Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.\r\n\r\nOliver Primavesi\u2019s \u2018The structure of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous\u2019 also has in its sights O\u2019Brien\u2019s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that \u2018O\u2019Brien\u2019s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is [\u2026] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1\u2032 (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O\u2019Brien\u2019s alternations and which were \u2018composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open\u2019 (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.\r\n\r\nAndr\u00e9 Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles\u2019 cosmology and demonology in his \u2018Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles\u2019. He champions a \u2018correspondence model\u2019 of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that \u2018we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle\u2019 and, further, that \u2018although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity\u2019 (267). Cosmic \u2018necessity\u2019 is absolute, whilst demonic \u2018Necessity\u2019 is hypothetical.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle\u2019, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of \u2018mechanical and deterministic\u2019 reading of Empedocles\u2019 cycle which, by imposing \u2018fixed periods between regular recurring events [\u2026] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance\u2019 (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles\u2019 Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles\u2019 daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115\u2019s \u2018oracle of necessity\u2019 and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to \u2018set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven\u2019 (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.\r\n\r\nAngelo Tonelli\u2019s \u2018Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles\u2019 fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9\u2032 is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018initiation poems\u2019 and the \u2018oriental spiritual tradition\u2019. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles\u2019 mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles\u2019 wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. \u2018But this\u2019, Tonelli asserts, \u2018is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism\u2019 (330).\r\n\r\nDavid Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 life cycles\u2019. He argues against the reading that places Love\u2019s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy \u2018accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history [\u2026] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it\u2019 (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. \u2018Love\u2019s zoogony was itself located in our world\u2019 (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love\u2019s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife\u2019s \u2018discordant anthropogony\u2019 (355) results in \u2018wretched race of men and women [\u2026] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them\u2019 (347).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles\u2019 zoogony and embryology\u2019, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife\u2019s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, \u2018suffocated\u2019 by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife\u2019s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for \u2018he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated\u2019 (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony as \u2018repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo\u2019 (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 theory of the transmigration of souls.\r\n\r\nI can\u2019t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration \u2018The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought\u2019 (407). Had the book\u2019s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics. ","btype":4,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TxAm4obxbTupTry","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":204,"full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":317,"pubplace":"Patras","publisher":"Institut for Philosophical Research","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 2005
By: Leinkauf, Thomas (Ed.), Steel, Carlos (Ed.)

Title	Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2005
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1
Volume	29
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Leinkauf, Thomas , Steel, Carlos
Translator(s)

The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK

{"_index":"sire","_id":"321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":321,"authors_free":[{"id":406,"entry_id":321,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":407,"entry_id":321,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","main_title":{"title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance"},"abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2005","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Philosophy in the Age of Justinian, 2005
By: Wildberg, Christian, Maas, Michael (Ed.)

Title	Philosophy in the Age of Justinian
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian
Pages	316-340
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s)	Maas, Michael
Translator(s)

In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names of nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques tion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of philosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow ering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, (c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc cur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they shaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the period that concerns us. [p. 318] To illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate otherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to establish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we now turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or less open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued that one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions within the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic ular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major schools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ ent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by Syrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, broadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, as far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, the Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, and by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the sixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of interpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio cultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally been a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community attending the Alexandrian philosophers’ lectures and classes (which would temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, as compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less of a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z

{"_index":"sire","_id":"428","_score":null,"_source":{"id":428,"authors_free":[{"id":577,"entry_id":428,"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":578,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":471,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Maas, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Maas","norm_person":{"id":471,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Maas","full_name":"Maas, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12626094X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"},"abstract":"In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names \r\nof nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques\u00ad\r\ntion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of \r\nphilosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow\u00ad\r\nering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, \r\n(c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc\u00ad\r\ncur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they \r\nshaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the \r\nperiod that concerns us. [p. 318] \r\nTo illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate \r\notherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to \r\nestablish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we \r\nnow turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or \r\nless open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued \r\nthat one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions \r\nwithin the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic\u00ad\r\nular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major \r\nschools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ\u00ad\r\nent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by \r\nSyrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, \r\nbroadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, \r\nas far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, \r\nthe Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, \r\nand by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the \r\nsixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of \r\ninterpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio\u00ad\r\ncultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally \r\nbeen a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community \r\nattending the Alexandrian philosophers\u2019 lectures and classes (which \r\nwould temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, \r\nas compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less \r\nof a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":471,"full_name":"Maas, Michael","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":428,"section_of":17,"pages":"316-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":17,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Maas2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527\u2013565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":17,"pubplace":"Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed, 2005
By: Wilberding, James

Title	Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	The Classical Quarterly
Volume	55 (New Series)
Issue	2
Pages	447–454
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wilberding, James
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

As we have seen above, Plotinus' hesitation with respect to (1) probably derived from his theory of double activity, and so Simplicius' willingness to agree to (1) suggests that he did not adopt this theory. Indeed, I suspect this was the case. It is true that the structure of Neoplatonic metaphysics that one encounters in Simplicius bears many similarities to that of Plotinus, including much of the language of procession. Both, for example, speak of lower substances "proceeding (προιέναι)" from and "enjoying" (ἀπολαμβάνειν) "radiation" (ἀπαύγασις or περιλάμπσις) from their priors. But nowhere, I claim, does Simplicius explain procession by means of Plotinus' theory of double activity. There is, of course, no great proof stone for such negative claims. Nevertheless, this claim can be partially verified by checking to see what Simplicius has to say about Plotinus' favourite examples of double activity—light, heat, and the images in mirrors—as well as by searching the Simplician corpus to see if he uses the designations for internal and external activity that Plotinus uses. Investigation shows that Simplicius does not make use of Plotinus' designations. The closest we get is a passage in his commentary on the Physics where he provides a long quotation of Damascius in which the theory seems to appear. Otherwise, we find only some discussion of the Aristotelian distinction between first and second actuality. But Simplicius does not distinguish the activity τῆς οὐσίας from that ἐκ (or ἀπὸ) τῆς οὐσίας, nor that πρὸς τὸ ἄνω from that πρὸς τὸ κάτω, nor that ἐν αὐτῇ (or αὐτῇ) from that ἐξ (or παρ’) αὐτῆς. Moreover, we can see that none of Plotinus' three examples is employed by Simplicius to explain double activity. Regarding the nature of light, Simplicius is even rather non-committal at times. As for heat, even when Simplicius discusses the distinction between the heat that is proper to fire (that is, the internal activity) and the heat that fire produces in another thing (that is, the external activity), he does so without using the language of the double activity theory. And Simplicius simply does not make much use of mirrors. All of this, I believe, points to the conclusion that Simplicius does not employ Plotinus' distinction between internal and external activity. If this is right, it perhaps does not imply that Simplicius' views on the metaphysics of procession are all that different from Plotinus', but at the very least, it would show that there is sometimes a considerable difference in the way he goes about describing those views. [conclusion p. 453-454]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2vgk7grGxbqIV3p

{"_index":"sire","_id":"431","_score":null,"_source":{"id":431,"authors_free":[{"id":582,"entry_id":431,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed"},"abstract":"As we have seen above, Plotinus' hesitation with respect to (1) probably derived from his theory of double activity, and so Simplicius' willingness to agree to (1) suggests that he did not adopt this theory. Indeed, I suspect this was the case. It is true that the structure of Neoplatonic metaphysics that one encounters in Simplicius bears many similarities to that of Plotinus, including much of the language of procession. Both, for example, speak of lower substances \"proceeding (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9)\" from and \"enjoying\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) \"radiation\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) from their priors. But nowhere, I claim, does Simplicius explain procession by means of Plotinus' theory of double activity.\r\n\r\nThere is, of course, no great proof stone for such negative claims. Nevertheless, this claim can be partially verified by checking to see what Simplicius has to say about Plotinus' favourite examples of double activity\u2014light, heat, and the images in mirrors\u2014as well as by searching the Simplician corpus to see if he uses the designations for internal and external activity that Plotinus uses. Investigation shows that Simplicius does not make use of Plotinus' designations. The closest we get is a passage in his commentary on the Physics where he provides a long quotation of Damascius in which the theory seems to appear. Otherwise, we find only some discussion of the Aristotelian distinction between first and second actuality. But Simplicius does not distinguish the activity \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 from that \u1f10\u03ba (or \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78) \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, nor that \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 from that \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, nor that \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 (or \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7) from that \u1f10\u03be (or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\r\n\r\nMoreover, we can see that none of Plotinus' three examples is employed by Simplicius to explain double activity. Regarding the nature of light, Simplicius is even rather non-committal at times. As for heat, even when Simplicius discusses the distinction between the heat that is proper to fire (that is, the internal activity) and the heat that fire produces in another thing (that is, the external activity), he does so without using the language of the double activity theory. And Simplicius simply does not make much use of mirrors. All of this, I believe, points to the conclusion that Simplicius does not employ Plotinus' distinction between internal and external activity.\r\n\r\nIf this is right, it perhaps does not imply that Simplicius' views on the metaphysics of procession are all that different from Plotinus', but at the very least, it would show that there is sometimes a considerable difference in the way he goes about describing those views. [conclusion p. 453-454]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2vgk7grGxbqIV3p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":431,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"55 (New Series)","issue":"2","pages":"447\u2013454"}},"sort":[2005]}

Where to Live the Philosophical Life in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return from Persia, 2005
By: Watts, Edward Jay

Title	Where to Live the Philosophical Life in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return from Persia
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
Volume	45
Issue	3
Pages	285-315
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, Edward Jay
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The closing of the Neoplatonic school in Athens by Justinian in 532 was not the end of classical philosophy, for when they returned to the Empire from Persia two years later the philosophers did not need to reconstitute the school at Harran or at any particular city in order to continue their philosophical activities. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EoZ3BSOdBPuEnet

{"_index":"sire","_id":"441","_score":null,"_source":{"id":441,"authors_free":[{"id":593,"entry_id":441,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","free_first_name":"Edward Jay","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Where to Live the Philosophical Life in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return from Persia","main_title":{"title":"Where to Live the Philosophical Life in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return from Persia"},"abstract":"The closing of the Neoplatonic school in Athens by Justinian in 532 was not the end of classical philosophy, for when they returned to the Empire from Persia two years later the philosophers did not need to reconstitute the school at Harran or at any particular city in order to continue their philosophical activities. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EoZ3BSOdBPuEnet","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":441,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies","volume":"45","issue":"3","pages":"285-315"}},"sort":[2005]}

The Philosophy of the Commentators 200–600 AD: A Sourcebook; I: Psychology (with Ethics and Religion); II: Physics; III: Logic and Metaphysics, 2005
By: Sorabji, Richard

Title	The Philosophy of the Commentators 200–600 AD: A Sourcebook; I: Psychology (with Ethics and Religion); II: Physics; III: Logic and Metaphysics
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is the first work to draw on the four hundred years of transition from ancient Greek philosophy to the medieval philosophy of Islam and the West. During this period, philosophy was often written in the form of commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle. Many ideas wrongly credited to the Middle Ages derive from these centuries, such as that of impetus in dynamics and intentional objects in philosophy of mind. The later Neoplatonist commentators fought a losing battle with Christianity, but inadvertently made Aristotle acceptable to Christians by ascribing to him belief in a Creator God and human immortality. The commentators provide a panorama of up to a thousand years of Greek philosophy, much of which would otherwise be lost. They also serve as the missing link essential for understanding the subsequent history of Western philosophy. Volume 1 deals with psychology, which for the Neoplatonist commentators was the gateway to metaphysics and theology. It was the subject on which Plato and Aristotle disagreed most, and on which the commentators went furthest beyond them in their search for synthesis. Ethics and religious practice fall naturally under psychology and are included in this volume. All sources appear in English translation and are carefully linked and cross-referenced by editorial comment and explanation. Bibliographies are provided throughout.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A2jZ42ng1GKqaG1

{"_index":"sire","_id":"198","_score":null,"_source":{"id":198,"authors_free":[{"id":255,"entry_id":198,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"The Philosophy of the Commentators 200\u2013600 AD: A Sourcebook; I: Psychology (with Ethics and Religion); II: Physics; III: Logic and Metaphysics","main_title":{"title":"The Philosophy of the Commentators 200\u2013600 AD: A Sourcebook; I: Psychology (with Ethics and Religion); II: Physics; III: Logic and Metaphysics"},"abstract":"This is the first work to draw on the four hundred years of transition from ancient Greek philosophy to the medieval philosophy of Islam and the West. During this period, philosophy was often written in the form of commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle. Many ideas wrongly credited to the Middle Ages derive from these centuries, such as that of impetus in dynamics and intentional objects in philosophy of mind.\r\n\r\nThe later Neoplatonist commentators fought a losing battle with Christianity, but inadvertently made Aristotle acceptable to Christians by ascribing to him belief in a Creator God and human immortality. The commentators provide a panorama of up to a thousand years of Greek philosophy, much of which would otherwise be lost. They also serve as the missing link essential for understanding the subsequent history of Western philosophy.\r\n\r\nVolume 1 deals with psychology, which for the Neoplatonist commentators was the gateway to metaphysics and theology. It was the subject on which Plato and Aristotle disagreed most, and on which the commentators went furthest beyond them in their search for synthesis. Ethics and religious practice fall naturally under psychology and are included in this volume.\r\n\r\nAll sources appear in English translation and are carefully linked and cross-referenced by editorial comment and explanation. Bibliographies are provided throughout.","btype":1,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A2jZ42ng1GKqaG1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":198,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.10–14’, 2005
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.10–14’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Aristotle believed that the outermost stars are carried round us on a transparent sphere. There are directions in the universe and a preferred direction of rotation. The sun, moon and planets are carried on different revolving spheres. The spheres and celestial bodies are composed of an everlasting fifth element, which has none of the ordinary contrary properties like heat and cold which could destroy it, but only the facility for uniform rotation. But this creates problems as to how the heavenly bodies create light, and, in the case of the sun, heat. The topics covered in this part of Simplicius' commentary are: the speeds and distances of the stars; that the stars are spherical; why the sun and moon have fewer motions than the other five planets; why the sphere of the fixed stars contains so many stars whereas the other heavenly spheres contain no more than one (Simplicius has a long excursus on planetary theory in his commentary on this chapter); discussion of people's views on the position, motion or rest, shape, and size of the earth; that the earth is a relatively small sphere at rest in the centre of the cosmos. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1psbLZBEMCHX0LV

{"_index":"sire","_id":"100","_score":null,"_source":{"id":100,"authors_free":[{"id":117,"entry_id":100,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2281,"entry_id":100,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2282,"entry_id":100,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 2.10\u201314\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 2.10\u201314\u2019"},"abstract":"Aristotle believed that the outermost stars are carried round us on a transparent sphere. There are directions in the universe and a preferred direction of rotation. The sun, moon and planets are carried on different revolving spheres. The spheres and celestial bodies are composed of an everlasting fifth element, which has none of the ordinary contrary properties like heat and cold which could destroy it, but only the facility for uniform rotation. But this creates problems as to how the heavenly bodies create light, and, in the case of the sun, heat. The topics covered in this part of Simplicius' commentary are: the speeds and distances of the stars; that the stars are spherical; why the sun and moon have fewer motions than the other five planets; why the sphere of the fixed stars contains so many stars whereas the other heavenly spheres contain no more than one (Simplicius has a long excursus on planetary theory in his commentary on this chapter); discussion of people's views on the position, motion or rest, shape, and size of the earth; that the earth is a relatively small sphere at rest in the centre of the cosmos. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1psbLZBEMCHX0LV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":100,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian, 2005
By: Maas, Michael (Ed.)

Title	The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Cambridge – New York
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Maas, Michael
Translator(s)

This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527–565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"17","_score":null,"_source":{"id":17,"authors_free":[{"id":2411,"entry_id":17,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":471,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Maas, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Maas","norm_person":{"id":471,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Maas","full_name":"Maas, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12626094X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian","main_title":{"title":"The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian"},"abstract":"This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527\u2013565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]","btype":4,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":471,"full_name":"Maas, Michael","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":17,"pubplace":"Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation, 2005
By: D'Ancona Costa, Cristina, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Taylor, Richard C. (Ed.)

Title	Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy
Pages	10-32
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Taylor, Richard C.
Translator(s)

In this article, the author discusses the impact of Plotinus, a philosopher of the late ancient period, on the development of philosophical thought, including the creation of falsafa and its influence on philosophy in the Middle Ages. D'Ancona Costa explores Plotinus' Platonism and his incorporation of the doctrines of other philosophers, especially Aristotle, into his teachings. She examines Plotinus' key doctrines, including his understanding of soul, intelligible reality, and the Forms, and how they influenced the development of falsafa. The article also discusses the Neoplatonic model of philosophy as a systematic discipline, covering topics from logic to theology, and how it impacted the study of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the article argues that an understanding of the roots of falsafa in the philosophical thought of Late Antiquity is essential for a proper understanding of the development of philosophy. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0rcOOPNBmsQmGsu

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1285","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1285,"authors_free":[{"id":1874,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2341,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2342,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":446,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","free_first_name":"Taylor","free_last_name":"Richard C.","norm_person":{"id":446,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation","main_title":{"title":"Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation"},"abstract":"In this article, the author discusses the impact of Plotinus, a philosopher of the late ancient period, on the development of philosophical thought, including the creation of falsafa and its influence on philosophy in the Middle Ages. D'Ancona Costa explores Plotinus' Platonism and his incorporation of the doctrines of other philosophers, especially Aristotle, into his teachings. She examines Plotinus' key doctrines, including his understanding of soul, intelligible reality, and the Forms, and how they influenced the development of falsafa. The article also discusses the Neoplatonic model of philosophy as a systematic discipline, covering topics from logic to theology, and how it impacted the study of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the article argues that an understanding of the roots of falsafa in the philosophical thought of Late Antiquity is essential for a proper understanding of the development of philosophy. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0rcOOPNBmsQmGsu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":446,"full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1285,"section_of":1309,"pages":"10-32","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1309,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson_Taylor2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Philosophy written in Arabic and in the Islamic world represents one of the great traditions of Western philosophy. Inspired by Greek philosophical works and the indigenous ideas of Islamic theology, Arabic philosophers from the ninth century onwards put forward ideas of great philosophical and historical importance. This collection of essays, by some of the leading scholars in Arabic philosophy, provides an introduction to the field by way of chapters devoted to individual thinkers (such as al-Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes) or groups, especially during the 'classical' period from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. It also includes chapters on areas of philosophical inquiry across the tradition, such as ethics and metaphysics. Finally, it includes chapters on later Islamic thought, and on the connections between Arabic philosophy and Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophy. The volume also includes a useful bibliography and a chronology of the most important Arabic thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jcHNB2bxIDAfZNw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1309,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro, 2005
By: Todd, Robert B.

Title	Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Bryn Mawr Classical Review
Volume	10
Issue	38
Pages	750
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It is a sure sign that a field in classical studies is maturing when the fragments of its authors come in for close scrutiny. Where the Greek Aristotelian commentators are concerned, the way was pointed, in this as in so many other areas, by the late Paul Moraux, who in his early and epochal study of Alexander of Aphrodisias's psychological works included an appendix of selected fragments of this commentator's lost exegesis of Aristotle's De animaJ Later he reconstructed thefragments of the same philosopher's treatment of the Posterior Analytics.2 More recently, Arabists in particular have worked on fragments of Alexander's commentaries on the Physics and De generatione et corruptione, while Moraux in the posthumously published third volume of his Aristotelismus surveyed the fragments of several of the lost commentaries.3 One of these was the commentary on the De caelo, the first part of which Andrea Rescigno, in the first of two projected volumes, has now treated exhaustively in his edition of the fragments of the commentary on Book 1. [introduction p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4vzysjSHY0mmOvC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":462,"authors_free":[{"id":619,"entry_id":462,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro","main_title":{"title":"Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro"},"abstract":"It is a sure sign that a field in classical studies is maturing when the fragments of its \r\nauthors come in for close scrutiny. Where the Greek Aristotelian commentators are \r\nconcerned, the way was pointed, in this as in so many other areas, by the late Paul \r\nMoraux, who in his early and epochal study of Alexander of Aphrodisias's \r\npsychological works included an appendix of selected fragments of this \r\ncommentator's lost exegesis of Aristotle's De animaJ Later he reconstructed thefragments of the same philosopher's treatment of the Posterior Analytics.2 More \r\nrecently, Arabists in particular have worked on fragments of Alexander's \r\ncommentaries on the Physics and De generatione et corruptione, while Moraux in \r\nthe posthumously published third volume of his Aristotelismus surveyed the \r\nfragments of several of the lost commentaries.3 One of these was the commentary \r\non the De caelo, the first part of which Andrea Rescigno, in the first of two \r\nprojected volumes, has now treated exhaustively in his edition of the fragments of \r\nthe commentary on Book 1. [introduction p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4vzysjSHY0mmOvC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":462,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bryn Mawr Classical Review","volume":"10","issue":"38","pages":"750"}},"sort":[2005]}

Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise, 2005
By: Steel, Carlos, Leinkauf, Thomas (Ed.), Steel, Carlos (Ed.)

Title	Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Pages	163-193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Leinkauf, Thomas , Steel, Carlos
Translator(s)

In this paper, we have made a reconstruction of an early treatise of Proclus in which he attempted to refute the objections Aristotle had put forward against Plato’s doctrine in the Timaeus. Simplicius, Philoponus, and Proclus himself have been our sources. Proclus recycles the arguments of his earlier treatise in his great commentary on the Timaeus. Philoponus fully exploits Proclus’ treatise against Proclus himself to refute his views on the eternity of the world. In this question and in many others, Philoponus believes Plato and Aristotle are radically opposed. Proclus does not dissimulate their disagreement, but, to Philoponus' anger, he does not take distance from Aristotle's interpretation of the Timaeus in the discussion about the eternity of the world. Instead of sincerely accepting with Plato that the world is generated and temporal, he defects to the Aristotelian view and thus comes in contradiction with his earlier work, as Philoponus demonstrates. Simplicius also read the early treatise of Proclus, and he quotes large extracts from it in his commentary on the De Caelo. Simplicius, who is a great advocate of the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, is often embarrassed with Proclus’ polemics. Whenever Proclus quotes a text from Aristotle to convince the philosopher that he too is “forced” to admit the truth of the Platonic principles, Simplicius makes of it an argument to demonstrate that Aristotle is fundamentally in agreement with Plato. How different their ultimate goals may have been in this polemic, both ideological opponents, Philoponus and Simplicius, offer us valuable information on a lost work of Proclus, in which he attacked Aristotle with youthful zeal in defense of the Timaeus. The treatise witnesses both his admiration for the Timaeus and his irritation at Aristotle’s unfair treatment. [conclusion p. 193]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kMYAmCjyTBGx2oh

{"_index":"sire","_id":"483","_score":null,"_source":{"id":483,"authors_free":[{"id":656,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":657,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":658,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise","main_title":{"title":"Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise"},"abstract":"In this paper, we have made a reconstruction of an early treatise of Proclus in which he attempted to refute the objections Aristotle had put forward against Plato\u2019s doctrine in the Timaeus. Simplicius, Philoponus, and Proclus himself have been our sources. Proclus recycles the arguments of his earlier treatise in his great commentary on the Timaeus. Philoponus fully exploits Proclus\u2019 treatise against Proclus himself to refute his views on the eternity of the world.\r\n\r\nIn this question and in many others, Philoponus believes Plato and Aristotle are radically opposed. Proclus does not dissimulate their disagreement, but, to Philoponus' anger, he does not take distance from Aristotle's interpretation of the Timaeus in the discussion about the eternity of the world. Instead of sincerely accepting with Plato that the world is generated and temporal, he defects to the Aristotelian view and thus comes in contradiction with his earlier work, as Philoponus demonstrates.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also read the early treatise of Proclus, and he quotes large extracts from it in his commentary on the De Caelo. Simplicius, who is a great advocate of the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, is often embarrassed with Proclus\u2019 polemics. Whenever Proclus quotes a text from Aristotle to convince the philosopher that he too is \u201cforced\u201d to admit the truth of the Platonic principles, Simplicius makes of it an argument to demonstrate that Aristotle is fundamentally in agreement with Plato.\r\n\r\nHow different their ultimate goals may have been in this polemic, both ideological opponents, Philoponus and Simplicius, offer us valuable information on a lost work of Proclus, in which he attacked Aristotle with youthful zeal in defense of the Timaeus. The treatise witnesses both his admiration for the Timaeus and his irritation at Aristotle\u2019s unfair treatment. [conclusion p. 193]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kMYAmCjyTBGx2oh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":483,"section_of":321,"pages":"163-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":321,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leinkauf\/Steel2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Empedocles' Life Cycles, 2005
By: Sedley, David N., Pierrēs, Apostolos L. (Ed.)

Title	Empedocles' Life Cycles
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers
Pages	331-371
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sedley, David N.
Editor(s)	Pierrēs, Apostolos L.
Translator(s)

In his poem On Nature, Empedocles described two cycles, a cosmic one and a daimonic one. The cosmic cycle is one of alternating world phases, governed in turn by two divine powers called Love and Strife, each phase explicitly said (B17.1-5, B26.4-6) to contain its own creation of life forms. The daimonic cycle is also governed by Love and Strife. A superior race of daimons, after living in blissful peace during the days of Love’s dominance, committed under the pernicious influence of Strife the cardinal sins of animal slaughter, meat eating, and oath-breaking. For these sins, they have been banished from bliss for ten thousand years, condemned to be reborn as all manner of living things, until their eventual return to bliss—a return which Empedocles, at the beginning of his poem The Purifications, announced he had himself finally achieved. It was once the policy of scholars to keep these two cycles firmly segregated, certainly in different poems and, if possible, in separate and irreconcilable areas of Empedocles' thought: one scientific, the other religious. That old separatist policy was already all but extinct when, in 1998, a newly discovered papyrus containing portions of Empedocles’ On Nature was published by Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, putting the final nail in its coffin. For there, the daimonic cycle was to be found in the immediate context of Empedocles’ physics. If we are to make adequate sense of Empedocles’ zoogony—his theory of the origins of life—it must include the creation of these daimons. Contrary to a common scholarly assumption, the daimons are themselves flesh-and-blood organisms, not mere transmigrating souls or spirits. Indeed, their sin of meat-eating would have been quite hard to perform if they had not been. The following view, and variants of it, are widely held about Empedocles’ aetiology of life forms. He posits two zoogonies: one governed by Love, the other by Strife. The zoogony of Love occurs in a phase of increasing Love, which eventually leads to the world’s conversion into the perfectly homogeneous sphairos. The zoogony of Strife occurs in a phase of increasing Strife, which eventually leads to the total separation of the four elementary bodies or ‘roots.’ And it is this latter world that Empedocles considered himself to inhabit. A major obstacle to this widespread (though by no means unanimous) picture lies in Empedocles’ concentration on Love’s zoogony, to the almost total exclusion of Strife’s. When it comes to the emergence of species, it is again and again what our evidence informs us to be the zoogony of increasing Love that is described, as we shall see amply confirmed in due course. As to Strife’s zoogony, we have nothing but an isolated description in B62 of the first stage of the process by which, under growing Strife, men and women were created. The fragment is further summarized and expanded by Aetius (below, pp. 337-38) and now helpfully supported by a cross-reference in the Strasbourg fragments (d10-14). But despite this additional material, and the probability that trees too were included, there is not so much as a word about the generation, under Strife, of any other animal species known to us. Thus, if the pattern of survival is to any extent representative of what was in the original poem, the widely favored interpretation that I have sketched faces the anomaly that Empedocles apparently spent far more time accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history (and which can have left no descendants in the world we ourselves inhabit, since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it. Although it is by no means obvious why Empedocles should have assumed the reverse cosmic process, in the supposed counterworld, to have thrown up the very same life forms that we find in our own world, it is widely held that he did, for whatever reasons, commit himself to this view. But the evidence is, on inspection, vanishingly weak. It consists mainly in Aristotle's assertion (GC II6, 334a5-7; A42) that Empedocles "also says that the world is in the same state now, under Strife, as previously under Love." I am not the first to point out that "under Love" and "under Strife" need not necessarily mean under increasing Love or increasing Strife, which would in fact be irrelevant to Aristotle's point in the context. Aristotle is trying to uncover contradictions between Empedocles’ various assertions about the respective motive powers of Love and Strife, and his question here is how, if Love and Strife differ from each other in their motive powers, Empedocles can hold that the world has the same basic arrangement and motions of the four simple bodies in an age dominated by Strife as it previously had in one dominated by Love—i.e., in ages in which, regardless of the actual direction of change, it is Love and Strife, respectively, that govern cosmic processes. (It may be that his wording does also carry implications about the current direction of change, but his main point in no way depends on any such implication.) [introduction p. 331-333]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q7rH00eYu70k9Td

{"_index":"sire","_id":"491","_score":null,"_source":{"id":491,"authors_free":[{"id":672,"entry_id":491,"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":673,"entry_id":491,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":204,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","free_first_name":"Apostolos L.","free_last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":204,"first_name":"Apostolos L.","last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1034968068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Life Cycles","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Life Cycles"},"abstract":"In his poem On Nature, Empedocles described two cycles, a cosmic one and a daimonic one. The cosmic cycle is one of alternating world phases, governed in turn by two divine powers called Love and Strife, each phase explicitly said (B17.1-5, B26.4-6) to contain its own creation of life forms. The daimonic cycle is also governed by Love and Strife. A superior race of daimons, after living in blissful peace during the days of Love\u2019s dominance, committed under the pernicious influence of Strife the cardinal sins of animal slaughter, meat eating, and oath-breaking. For these sins, they have been banished from bliss for ten thousand years, condemned to be reborn as all manner of living things, until their eventual return to bliss\u2014a return which Empedocles, at the beginning of his poem The Purifications, announced he had himself finally achieved.\r\n\r\nIt was once the policy of scholars to keep these two cycles firmly segregated, certainly in different poems and, if possible, in separate and irreconcilable areas of Empedocles' thought: one scientific, the other religious. That old separatist policy was already all but extinct when, in 1998, a newly discovered papyrus containing portions of Empedocles\u2019 On Nature was published by Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, putting the final nail in its coffin. For there, the daimonic cycle was to be found in the immediate context of Empedocles\u2019 physics.\r\n\r\nIf we are to make adequate sense of Empedocles\u2019 zoogony\u2014his theory of the origins of life\u2014it must include the creation of these daimons. Contrary to a common scholarly assumption, the daimons are themselves flesh-and-blood organisms, not mere transmigrating souls or spirits. Indeed, their sin of meat-eating would have been quite hard to perform if they had not been.\r\n\r\nThe following view, and variants of it, are widely held about Empedocles\u2019 aetiology of life forms. He posits two zoogonies: one governed by Love, the other by Strife. The zoogony of Love occurs in a phase of increasing Love, which eventually leads to the world\u2019s conversion into the perfectly homogeneous sphairos. The zoogony of Strife occurs in a phase of increasing Strife, which eventually leads to the total separation of the four elementary bodies or \u2018roots.\u2019 And it is this latter world that Empedocles considered himself to inhabit.\r\n\r\nA major obstacle to this widespread (though by no means unanimous) picture lies in Empedocles\u2019 concentration on Love\u2019s zoogony, to the almost total exclusion of Strife\u2019s. When it comes to the emergence of species, it is again and again what our evidence informs us to be the zoogony of increasing Love that is described, as we shall see amply confirmed in due course. As to Strife\u2019s zoogony, we have nothing but an isolated description in B62 of the first stage of the process by which, under growing Strife, men and women were created. The fragment is further summarized and expanded by Aetius (below, pp. 337-38) and now helpfully supported by a cross-reference in the Strasbourg fragments (d10-14). But despite this additional material, and the probability that trees too were included, there is not so much as a word about the generation, under Strife, of any other animal species known to us.\r\n\r\nThus, if the pattern of survival is to any extent representative of what was in the original poem, the widely favored interpretation that I have sketched faces the anomaly that Empedocles apparently spent far more time accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history (and which can have left no descendants in the world we ourselves inhabit, since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it.\r\n\r\nAlthough it is by no means obvious why Empedocles should have assumed the reverse cosmic process, in the supposed counterworld, to have thrown up the very same life forms that we find in our own world, it is widely held that he did, for whatever reasons, commit himself to this view. But the evidence is, on inspection, vanishingly weak.\r\n\r\nIt consists mainly in Aristotle's assertion (GC II6, 334a5-7; A42) that Empedocles \"also says that the world is in the same state now, under Strife, as previously under Love.\" I am not the first to point out that \"under Love\" and \"under Strife\" need not necessarily mean under increasing Love or increasing Strife, which would in fact be irrelevant to Aristotle's point in the context.\r\n\r\nAristotle is trying to uncover contradictions between Empedocles\u2019 various assertions about the respective motive powers of Love and Strife, and his question here is how, if Love and Strife differ from each other in their motive powers, Empedocles can hold that the world has the same basic arrangement and motions of the four simple bodies in an age dominated by Strife as it previously had in one dominated by Love\u2014i.e., in ages in which, regardless of the actual direction of change, it is Love and Strife, respectively, that govern cosmic processes.\r\n\r\n(It may be that his wording does also carry implications about the current direction of change, but his main point in no way depends on any such implication.) [introduction p. 331-333]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q7rH00eYu70k9Td","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":204,"full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":491,"section_of":317,"pages":"331-371","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":317,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pierres2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"Review by\r\nJenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles\u2019 poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle\u2019s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 cycle. As a whole, the book\u2019s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of \u2018Strife\u2019. This \u2018Strife\u2019 is not, however, Empedocles\u2019 cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic.\r\n\r\nIn general, editing seems to have been rather \u2018hands off\u2019. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as \u2018probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work\u2019 (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.\r\n\r\nAnthony Kenny\u2019s \u2018Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition\u2019 offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles\u2019 reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold\u2019s \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold\u2019s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019 may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: \u2018Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born\u2019 (30).\r\n\r\nGlenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche\u2019s Empedocles in his \u2018The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles\u2019. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles \u2018played quite a significant role in Nietzsche\u2019s intellectual world\u2019 (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was \u2018far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being\u2019 (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as \u2018der reine tragische Mensch\u2019, that, perhaps under the influence of H\u00f6lderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius\u2019 account).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles: two theologies, two projects\u2019, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles\u2019 physical and ethical theories. He interprets \u2018The Origins\u2019 and \u2018The Purifications\u2019 as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that \u2018[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference\u2019 (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 \u2018extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus\u2019 (62).\r\n\r\nRene N\u00fcnlist\u2019s \u2018Poetological imagery in Empedocles\u2019 considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8\u2019s \u03ba\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f73\u03c9\u03bd in Empedocles B17\u2019s \u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. N\u00fcnlist argues that Empedocles\u2019 \u2018poetological imagery\u2019 is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to \u2018convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method\u2019 (79). N\u00fcnlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.\r\n\r\nRichard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction\u2019. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles\u2019 physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko\u2019s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles\u2019 Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests \u2018at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet\u2019 (113).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles\u2019, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the \u2018one poem or two?\u2019 question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018esoteric\u2019 and \u2018exoteric\u2019 teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural \u2018you\u2019, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any \u2018serious teaching\u2019 (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd\u2019s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that \u2018one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge\u2019 (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd\u2019s Baconian Empedocles \u2018sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world\u2019 (153).\r\n\r\nRichard McKirahan\u2019s \u2018Assertion and argument in Empedocles\u2019 cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?\u2019 offers a subtle and stimulating survey of \u2018the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief\u2019 (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes\u2019s assertion that those reading his cosmology \u2018look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.\u20192 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles\u2019 debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, \u2018Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses\u2019 (183).\r\n\r\nApostolos Pierris argues for a \u2018tripartite correspondence\u2019 (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his \u2018 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1f77\u1ff3 and \u0394\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7 : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.\u2019 Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles\u2019 thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle\u2019s critique along the way. He concludes that \u2018in understanding Empedocles\u2019 system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other\u2019 (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018The topology and dynamics of Empedocles\u2019 cycle\u2019, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O\u2019Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called \u2018Oscillation Theory\u2019 makes the most sense of Empedocles\u2019 use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles\u2019 Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.\r\n\r\nOliver Primavesi\u2019s \u2018The structure of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous\u2019 also has in its sights O\u2019Brien\u2019s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that \u2018O\u2019Brien\u2019s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is [\u2026] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1\u2032 (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O\u2019Brien\u2019s alternations and which were \u2018composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open\u2019 (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.\r\n\r\nAndr\u00e9 Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles\u2019 cosmology and demonology in his \u2018Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles\u2019. He champions a \u2018correspondence model\u2019 of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that \u2018we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle\u2019 and, further, that \u2018although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity\u2019 (267). Cosmic \u2018necessity\u2019 is absolute, whilst demonic \u2018Necessity\u2019 is hypothetical.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle\u2019, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of \u2018mechanical and deterministic\u2019 reading of Empedocles\u2019 cycle which, by imposing \u2018fixed periods between regular recurring events [\u2026] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance\u2019 (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles\u2019 Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles\u2019 daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115\u2019s \u2018oracle of necessity\u2019 and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to \u2018set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven\u2019 (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.\r\n\r\nAngelo Tonelli\u2019s \u2018Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles\u2019 fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9\u2032 is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018initiation poems\u2019 and the \u2018oriental spiritual tradition\u2019. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles\u2019 mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles\u2019 wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. \u2018But this\u2019, Tonelli asserts, \u2018is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism\u2019 (330).\r\n\r\nDavid Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 life cycles\u2019. He argues against the reading that places Love\u2019s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy \u2018accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history [\u2026] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it\u2019 (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. \u2018Love\u2019s zoogony was itself located in our world\u2019 (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love\u2019s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife\u2019s \u2018discordant anthropogony\u2019 (355) results in \u2018wretched race of men and women [\u2026] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them\u2019 (347).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles\u2019 zoogony and embryology\u2019, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife\u2019s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, \u2018suffocated\u2019 by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife\u2019s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for \u2018he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated\u2019 (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony as \u2018repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo\u2019 (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 theory of the transmigration of souls.\r\n\r\nI can\u2019t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration \u2018The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought\u2019 (407). Had the book\u2019s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TxAm4obxbTupTry","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":317,"pubplace":"Patras","publisher":"Institut for Philosophical Research","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy, 2005
By: Henry, Devin

Title	Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	50
Issue	1
Pages	1-42
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Henry, Devin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Historically embryogenesis has been among the most philosophically intriguing phenomena. In this paper I focus on one aspect of biological development that was particularly perplexing to the ancients: self-organisation. For many ancients, the fact that an organism determines the important features of its own development required a special model for understanding how this was possible. This was especially true for Aristotle, Alexander, and Simplicius, who all looked to contemporary technology to supply that model. However, they did not all agree on what kind of device should be used. In this paper I explore the way these ancients made use of technology as a model for the developing embryo. I argue that their different choices of device reveal fundamental differences in the way each thinker understood the nature of biological development itself. In the final section of the paper I challenge the traditional view (dating back to Alexander’s interpretation of Aristotle) that the use of automata in GA can simply be read off from their use in the de motu. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1E80hY0xXEIYf7e

{"_index":"sire","_id":"512","_score":null,"_source":{"id":512,"authors_free":[{"id":711,"entry_id":512,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":1,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Henry, Devin","free_first_name":"Devin","free_last_name":"Henry","norm_person":{"id":1,"first_name":"Devin ","last_name":"Henry","full_name":"Henry, Devin ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071377922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"Historically embryogenesis has been among the most philosophically intriguing phenomena. In this paper I focus on one aspect of biological development that was particularly perplexing to the ancients: self-organisation. For many ancients, the fact that an organism determines the important features of its own develop\u00adment required a special model for understanding how this was possible. This was especially true for Aristotle, Alexander, and Simplicius, who all looked to con\u00adtemporary technology to supply that model. However, they did not all agree on what kind of device should be used. In this paper I explore the way these ancients made use of technology as a model for the developing embryo. I argue that their different choices of device reveal fundamental differences in the way each thinker understood the nature of biological development itself. In the final section of the paper I challenge the traditional view (dating back to Alexander\u2019s interpretation of Aristotle) that the use of automata in GA can simply be read off from their use in the de motu. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1E80hY0xXEIYf7e","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":1,"full_name":"Henry, Devin ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":512,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"50","issue":"1","pages":"1-42"}},"sort":[2005]}

Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander, 2005
By: Guldentops, Guy, Steel, Carlos (Ed.), Leinkauf, Thomas (Ed.)

Title	Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Pages	195-212
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Guldentops, Guy
Editor(s)	Steel, Carlos , Leinkauf, Thomas
Translator(s)

In this paper, I shall try to shed some light on Simplicius’ use of the Ti maeus in his commentary on De Caelo, and particularly on the difference between his own interpretation and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [...] In what follows, I’ll try to detail some differences between Alexander’s and Simplicius' uses and interpretations o f the Timaeus-, in particular, I’ll focus on their arguments concerning the generation of the world, the world soul, and the immobility of the earth. Before looking at some selected pas sages, however, it is necessary to outline Simplicius’ general attitude toward Alexander of Aphrodisias and to sketch their overall interpretations of the theme of De Caelo. [Introduction, pp. 196 f.]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/650gVOAyvHZdk8u

{"_index":"sire","_id":"526","_score":null,"_source":{"id":526,"authors_free":[{"id":736,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":151,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Guldentops, Guy","free_first_name":"Guy","free_last_name":"Guldentops","norm_person":{"id":151,"first_name":"Guy","last_name":"Guldentops","full_name":"Guldentops, Guy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031934898","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":737,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":738,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall try to shed some light on Simplicius\u2019 use of the Ti\u00ad\r\nmaeus in his commentary on De Caelo, and particularly on the difference \r\nbetween his own interpretation and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [...] In what follows, I\u2019ll try to detail some differences between Alexander\u2019s \r\nand Simplicius' uses and interpretations o f the Timaeus-, in particular, I\u2019ll \r\nfocus on their arguments concerning the generation of the world, the world \r\nsoul, and the immobility of the earth. Before looking at some selected pas\u00ad\r\nsages, however, it is necessary to outline Simplicius\u2019 general attitude toward \r\nAlexander of Aphrodisias and to sketch their overall interpretations of the \r\ntheme of De Caelo. [Introduction, pp. 196 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/650gVOAyvHZdk8u","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":151,"full_name":"Guldentops, Guy","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":526,"section_of":321,"pages":"195-212","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":321,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leinkauf\/Steel2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Commentators on Aristotle, 2005
By: Falcon, Andrea, Zalta, Edward N. (Ed.)

Title	Commentators on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Editor(s)	Zalta, Edward N.
Translator(s)

There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle shared. What they shared was the practice of reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his works deserved to be studied with great care. Due to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition, there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretation in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis. The exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical works to explicating and extracting Aristotle’s distinctive philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement. [conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GtNhh0ejpXZdIhQ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1306","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1306,"authors_free":[{"id":1930,"entry_id":1306,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2097,"entry_id":1306,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commentators on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Commentators on Aristotle"},"abstract":"There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle shared. What they shared was the practice of reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his works deserved to be studied with great care.\r\n\r\nDue to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition, there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretation in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis.\r\n\r\nThe exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical works to explicating and extracting Aristotle\u2019s distinctive philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement.\r\n[conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GtNhh0ejpXZdIhQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1306,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":{"id":1306,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2005]}

What is Platonism?, 2005
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

Title	What is Platonism?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Journal of the History of Philosophy
Volume	43
Issue	3
Pages	253-276
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

My main conclusion is that we should understand Platonism historically as consisting in fidelity to the principles of “top-downism.” So understanding it, we havea relatively sharp critical tool for deciding who was and who was not a Platonist despite their silence or protestations to the contrary. Unquestionably, the most important figure in this regard is Aristotle. I would not like to end this historical inquiry, however, without suggesting a philosophical moral. The moral is that there are at least some reasons for claiming that a truly anti-Platonic Aristotelianism is not philosophically in the cards, so to speak. Thus, if one rigorously and honestly seeks to remove the principles of Platonism from a putatively Aristotelian position, what would remain would be incoherent and probably indefensible. Thus, an Aristotelian ontology of the sensible world that excluded the ontological priority of the supersensible is probably unsustainable. And an Aristotelian psychology that did not recognize the priority and irreducibility of intellect to soul would be similarly beyond repair.89 What contemporary exponents of versions of Platonism or Aristotelianism should perhaps conclude from a study of the history is that, rather than standing in opposition to each other, merger, or at least synergy, ought to be the order of the day.[conclusion, p. 276]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Y1wq12FmpF2tnaH

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1317","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1317,"authors_free":[{"id":1951,"entry_id":1317,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What is Platonism?","main_title":{"title":"What is Platonism?"},"abstract":"My main conclusion is that we should understand Platonism historically as consisting in fidelity to the principles of \u201ctop-downism.\u201d So understanding it, we havea relatively sharp critical tool for deciding who was and who was not a Platonist despite their silence or protestations to the contrary. Unquestionably, the most important figure in this regard is Aristotle. I would not like to end this historical inquiry, however, without suggesting a philosophical moral. The moral is that there\r\nare at least some reasons for claiming that a truly anti-Platonic Aristotelianism is not philosophically in the cards, so to speak. Thus, if one rigorously and honestly seeks to remove the principles of Platonism from a putatively Aristotelian position, what would remain would be incoherent and probably indefensible. Thus, an Aristotelian ontology of the sensible world that excluded the ontological priority of the supersensible is probably unsustainable. And an Aristotelian psychology that did not recognize the priority and irreducibility of intellect to soul would be\r\nsimilarly beyond repair.89 What contemporary exponents of versions of Platonism or Aristotelianism should perhaps conclude from a study of the history is that, rather than standing in opposition to each other, merger, or at least synergy, ought to be the order of the day.[conclusion, p. 276]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Y1wq12FmpF2tnaH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1317,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Philosophy","volume":"43","issue":"3","pages":"253-276"}},"sort":[2005]}

The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle, 2005
By: Hubler, J. Noel

Title	The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	The Review of Metaphysics
Volume	59
Issue	2
Pages	287-311
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hubler, J. Noel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle's brief consideration of self-perception engaged in an extensive discussion of the problem, offering various interpretations of apperception from the second to sixth century. The commentators modeled their explanation of self-awareness in perception on their understanding of the nature of knowledge in general and their notion of what the core meaning of truth was. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XGXaGpEPq3YahVv

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1354","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1354,"authors_free":[{"id":2028,"entry_id":1354,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":199,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hubler, J. Noel","free_first_name":"J. Noel","free_last_name":"Hubler","norm_person":{"id":199,"first_name":"J. Noel","last_name":"Hubler","full_name":"Hubler, J. Noel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188463461","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle"},"abstract":"The ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle's brief consideration of self-perception engaged in an extensive discussion of the problem, offering various interpretations of apperception from the second to sixth century. The commentators modeled their explanation of self-awareness in perception on their understanding of the nature of knowledge in general and their notion of what the core meaning of truth was. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XGXaGpEPq3YahVv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":199,"full_name":"Hubler, J. Noel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1354,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"59","issue":"2","pages":"287-311"}},"sort":[2005]}

Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction, 2005
By: Janko, Richard, Pierrēs, Apostolos L. (Ed.)

Title	Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers
Pages	93-137
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Janko, Richard
Editor(s)	Pierrēs, Apostolos L.
Translator(s)

In 1992 Alain Martin recognized that papyrus fragments from Panopolis in Upper Egypt, and now in Strasbourg, derive from Empedocles’ Physics. This was a discovery of extraordinary significance. It is universally regarded as the first time that a text of a known Presocratic philosopher has been found in a papyrus, with the exception of parts of the On Truth of Antiphon the sophist. The proof that complete texts of a Presocratic thinker were still in circulation late in the first century C.E. came as a surprise to many, although not to me. In fact, Antiphon and Empedocles are not the only cases in which the text of a fifth-century philosopher survives on a papyrus. I have argued elsewhere that the Derveni Papyrus is also the work of a Presocratic, the physikos Diagoras of Melos, and in my view, that papyrus is even more important than this one. But the identification of the Strasbourg fragments of Empedocles might have been expected to be profoundly important for early Greek philosophy. The first editors of the fragments, Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, have presented us with an edition of extraordinarily high quality. However, the papyrus has raised more puzzles than it has solved and thus far has been considered something of a disappointment, because much of it overlaps with the longest extant fragment of Physics Book I, while the rest has seemed very peculiar indeed. In the last part of this paper, I shall offer a new solution to these problems, one which reveals the full significance of the papyrus, renders the philosophical system of Empedocles slightly (but only slightly) less bizarre than it has seemed, and makes the argument of his poetry much more coherent than the papyrus made it appear. In the process, we shall, I believe, be able to reconstruct a passage from his Physics 131 verses long and form a clear impression of how his great philosophical poetry would have sounded. But before I do so, I must remind you of the situation before the discovery of the papyrus and explore the question of whether Empedocles composed one poem or two, and on what topics. [introduction p. 93-94]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mT5sBgIVt1JZCw2

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1358,"authors_free":[{"id":2034,"entry_id":1358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":203,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janko, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Janko","norm_person":{"id":203,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Janko","full_name":"Janko, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1013357299","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2391,"entry_id":1358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":204,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","free_first_name":"Apostolos L.","free_last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":204,"first_name":"Apostolos L.","last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1034968068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction"},"abstract":"In 1992 Alain Martin recognized that papyrus fragments from Panopolis in Upper Egypt, and now in Strasbourg, derive from Empedocles\u2019 Physics. This was a discovery of extraordinary significance. It is universally regarded as the first time that a text of a known Presocratic philosopher has been found in a papyrus, with the exception of parts of the On Truth of Antiphon the sophist. The proof that complete texts of a Presocratic thinker were still in circulation late in the first century C.E. came as a surprise to many, although not to me. In fact, Antiphon and Empedocles are not the only cases in which the text of a fifth-century philosopher survives on a papyrus. I have argued elsewhere that the Derveni Papyrus is also the work of a Presocratic, the physikos Diagoras of Melos, and in my view, that papyrus is even more important than this one. But the identification of the Strasbourg fragments of Empedocles might have been expected to be profoundly important for early Greek philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe first editors of the fragments, Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, have presented us with an edition of extraordinarily high quality. However, the papyrus has raised more puzzles than it has solved and thus far has been considered something of a disappointment, because much of it overlaps with the longest extant fragment of Physics Book I, while the rest has seemed very peculiar indeed.\r\n\r\nIn the last part of this paper, I shall offer a new solution to these problems, one which reveals the full significance of the papyrus, renders the philosophical system of Empedocles slightly (but only slightly) less bizarre than it has seemed, and makes the argument of his poetry much more coherent than the papyrus made it appear. In the process, we shall, I believe, be able to reconstruct a passage from his Physics 131 verses long and form a clear impression of how his great philosophical poetry would have sounded. But before I do so, I must remind you of the situation before the discovery of the papyrus and explore the question of whether Empedocles composed one poem or two, and on what topics. [introduction p. 93-94]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mT5sBgIVt1JZCw2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":203,"full_name":"Janko, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":204,"full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1358,"section_of":317,"pages":"93-137","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":317,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pierres2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"Review by\r\nJenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles\u2019 poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle\u2019s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 cycle. As a whole, the book\u2019s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of \u2018Strife\u2019. This \u2018Strife\u2019 is not, however, Empedocles\u2019 cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic.\r\n\r\nIn general, editing seems to have been rather \u2018hands off\u2019. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as \u2018probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work\u2019 (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.\r\n\r\nAnthony Kenny\u2019s \u2018Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition\u2019 offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles\u2019 reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold\u2019s \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold\u2019s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019 may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: \u2018Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born\u2019 (30).\r\n\r\nGlenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche\u2019s Empedocles in his \u2018The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles\u2019. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles \u2018played quite a significant role in Nietzsche\u2019s intellectual world\u2019 (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was \u2018far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being\u2019 (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as \u2018der reine tragische Mensch\u2019, that, perhaps under the influence of H\u00f6lderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius\u2019 account).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles: two theologies, two projects\u2019, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles\u2019 physical and ethical theories. He interprets \u2018The Origins\u2019 and \u2018The Purifications\u2019 as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that \u2018[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference\u2019 (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 \u2018extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus\u2019 (62).\r\n\r\nRene N\u00fcnlist\u2019s \u2018Poetological imagery in Empedocles\u2019 considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8\u2019s \u03ba\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f73\u03c9\u03bd in Empedocles B17\u2019s \u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. N\u00fcnlist argues that Empedocles\u2019 \u2018poetological imagery\u2019 is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to \u2018convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method\u2019 (79). N\u00fcnlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.\r\n\r\nRichard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction\u2019. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles\u2019 physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko\u2019s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles\u2019 Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests \u2018at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet\u2019 (113).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles\u2019, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the \u2018one poem or two?\u2019 question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018esoteric\u2019 and \u2018exoteric\u2019 teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural \u2018you\u2019, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any \u2018serious teaching\u2019 (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd\u2019s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that \u2018one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge\u2019 (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd\u2019s Baconian Empedocles \u2018sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world\u2019 (153).\r\n\r\nRichard McKirahan\u2019s \u2018Assertion and argument in Empedocles\u2019 cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?\u2019 offers a subtle and stimulating survey of \u2018the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief\u2019 (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes\u2019s assertion that those reading his cosmology \u2018look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.\u20192 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles\u2019 debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, \u2018Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses\u2019 (183).\r\n\r\nApostolos Pierris argues for a \u2018tripartite correspondence\u2019 (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his \u2018 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1f77\u1ff3 and \u0394\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7 : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.\u2019 Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles\u2019 thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle\u2019s critique along the way. He concludes that \u2018in understanding Empedocles\u2019 system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other\u2019 (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018The topology and dynamics of Empedocles\u2019 cycle\u2019, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O\u2019Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called \u2018Oscillation Theory\u2019 makes the most sense of Empedocles\u2019 use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles\u2019 Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.\r\n\r\nOliver Primavesi\u2019s \u2018The structure of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous\u2019 also has in its sights O\u2019Brien\u2019s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that \u2018O\u2019Brien\u2019s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is [\u2026] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1\u2032 (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O\u2019Brien\u2019s alternations and which were \u2018composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open\u2019 (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.\r\n\r\nAndr\u00e9 Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles\u2019 cosmology and demonology in his \u2018Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles\u2019. He champions a \u2018correspondence model\u2019 of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that \u2018we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle\u2019 and, further, that \u2018although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity\u2019 (267). Cosmic \u2018necessity\u2019 is absolute, whilst demonic \u2018Necessity\u2019 is hypothetical.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle\u2019, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of \u2018mechanical and deterministic\u2019 reading of Empedocles\u2019 cycle which, by imposing \u2018fixed periods between regular recurring events [\u2026] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance\u2019 (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles\u2019 Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles\u2019 daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115\u2019s \u2018oracle of necessity\u2019 and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to \u2018set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven\u2019 (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.\r\n\r\nAngelo Tonelli\u2019s \u2018Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles\u2019 fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9\u2032 is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018initiation poems\u2019 and the \u2018oriental spiritual tradition\u2019. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles\u2019 mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles\u2019 wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. \u2018But this\u2019, Tonelli asserts, \u2018is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism\u2019 (330).\r\n\r\nDavid Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 life cycles\u2019. He argues against the reading that places Love\u2019s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy \u2018accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history [\u2026] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it\u2019 (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. \u2018Love\u2019s zoogony was itself located in our world\u2019 (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love\u2019s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife\u2019s \u2018discordant anthropogony\u2019 (355) results in \u2018wretched race of men and women [\u2026] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them\u2019 (347).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles\u2019 zoogony and embryology\u2019, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife\u2019s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, \u2018suffocated\u2019 by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife\u2019s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for \u2018he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated\u2019 (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony as \u2018repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo\u2019 (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 theory of the transmigration of souls.\r\n\r\nI can\u2019t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration \u2018The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought\u2019 (407). Had the book\u2019s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TxAm4obxbTupTry","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":317,"pubplace":"Patras","publisher":"Institut for Philosophical Research","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Aristotle and Other Platonists, 2005
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

Title	Aristotle and Other Platonists
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Ithaca, NY
Publisher	Cornell University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In a wide-ranging book likely to cause controversy, Lloyd P. Gerson sets out the case for the "harmony" of Platonism and Aristotelianism, the standard view in late antiquity. [autor's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rxVkkaQrVPjZeXg

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1431","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1431,"authors_free":[{"id":2256,"entry_id":1431,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and Other Platonists","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and Other Platonists"},"abstract":"In a wide-ranging book likely to cause controversy, Lloyd P. Gerson sets out the case for the \"harmony\" of Platonism and Aristotelianism, the standard view in late antiquity. [autor's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rxVkkaQrVPjZeXg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1431,"pubplace":"Ithaca, NY","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, 2005
By: O'Meara, Dominic J.

Title	Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	O'Meara, Dominic J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Conventional wisdom suggests that the Platonist philosophers of Late Antiquity — from Plotinus in the 3rd century to the 6th-century schools in Athens and Alexandria — neglected the political dimension of their Platonic heritage in their concentration on an otherworldly life. This book presents a reappraisal of these thinkers, arguing that their otherworldliness involved, rather than excluded, political ideas. A reconstruction of the political philosophy of these thinkers is proposed for the first time, including discussion of these Platonists’ conceptions of the function, structure, and contents of political science (including questions concerning political reform, law, justice, penology, religion, and political action), its relation to political virtue and to the divinization of soul and state. This book also traces the influence of these ideas on selected Christian and Islamic writers: Eusebius, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and al-Farabi. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/T78u11ZeLDWAoqn

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1517","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1517,"authors_free":[{"id":2634,"entry_id":1517,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Conventional wisdom suggests that the Platonist philosophers of Late Antiquity \u2014 from Plotinus in the 3rd century to the 6th-century schools in Athens and Alexandria \u2014 neglected the political dimension of their Platonic heritage in their concentration on an otherworldly life. This book presents a reappraisal of these thinkers, arguing that their otherworldliness involved, rather than excluded, political ideas. A reconstruction of the political philosophy of these thinkers is proposed for the first time, including discussion of these Platonists\u2019 conceptions of the function, structure, and contents of political science (including questions concerning political reform, law, justice, penology, religion, and political action), its relation to political virtue and to the divinization of soul and state. This book also traces the influence of these ideas on selected Christian and Islamic writers: Eusebius, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and al-Farabi. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T78u11ZeLDWAoqn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1517,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2005]}

The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius, 2004
By: Lautner, Peter, Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Adamson, Peter (Ed.)

Title	The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	163-174
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lautner, Peter
Editor(s)	Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter
Translator(s)

I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koinê aisthêsis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koinê aisthêsis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koinê aisthêsis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority. That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension. It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them. This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses. Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic. Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4

Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient, 2004
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2004
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	147
Issue	3/4
Pages	408-420
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In the first place, the survey of the commentaries on the Categories with which Simplicius provides us, as well as the examination undertaken by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus’ commentaries on Plato’s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly, an attentive comparison between those Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a genuine doctrinal continuity existed from Porphyry to Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus’ attitude, which he manifests in the introduction to his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iOqb6gj8D2LqZxB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"638","_score":null,"_source":{"id":638,"authors_free":[{"id":904,"entry_id":638,"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":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient"},"abstract":"In the first place, the survey of the commentaries on the Categories with which Simplicius provides us, as well as the examination undertaken by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus\u2019 commentaries on Plato\u2019s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly, an attentive comparison between those Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a genuine doctrinal continuity existed from Porphyry to Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus\u2019 attitude, which he manifests in the introduction to his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420]","btype":3,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iOqb6gj8D2LqZxB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":638,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"147","issue":"3\/4","pages":"408-420"}},"sort":[2004]}

Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32), 2004
By: O’Meara, Dominic J., Gannagé, Emma (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003
Pages	89-98
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	O’Meara, Dominic J.
Editor(s)	Gannagé, Emma
Translator(s)

The purpose of this paper is to propose some discussion of a passage in which a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the first half of the sixth century A. D. speaks of the function of the philosopher in political and social life. The Neoplatonist is Simplicius and the passage is found in chapter 32 of his commentary on the Manual of Epictetus. The date of this commentary is uncertain, but it has been argued that Simplicius refers in it to the anti-pagan measures taken by the Emperor Justinian in 529 which put an end to the activities of the Neoplatonist school at Athens and led to the exile in Persia of the school’s head, Damascius, accompanied by his pupil Simplicius and by other philosophers. My translation, given below (II), of the passage in Simplicius’ commentary is preceded (I) by some indications concerning the context in which the passage occurs and will be followed (III) by comments on themes present in the passage. [introduction, p. 89]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q9F64Dfl9UaGBE7

{"_index":"sire","_id":"663","_score":null,"_source":{"id":663,"authors_free":[{"id":966,"entry_id":663,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O\u2019Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O\u2019Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":967,"entry_id":663,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":467,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","free_first_name":"Emma","free_last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":467,"first_name":" Emma","last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102294063","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to propose some discussion of a passage in which a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the first half of the sixth century A. D. speaks of the function of the philosopher in political and social life. The Neoplatonist is Simplicius and the passage is found in chapter 32 of his commentary on the Manual \r\nof Epictetus. The date of this commentary is uncertain, but it has been argued that Simplicius refers in it to the anti-pagan measures taken by the Emperor Justinian in 529 which put an end to the activities of the Neoplatonist school at Athens and led to the exile in Persia of the school\u2019s head, Damascius, accompanied by his pupil Simplicius and by other philosophers. My translation, given below (II), of the pas\u00adsage in Simplicius\u2019 commentary is preceded (I) by some indications concerning the context in which the passage occurs and will be followed (III) by comments on themes present in the passage. [introduction, p. 89]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q9F64Dfl9UaGBE7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":467,"full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":663,"section_of":303,"pages":"89-98","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":303,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gannag\u00e92004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"Review: Durant deux semaines s\u2019est r\u00e9uni ce symposium de sp\u00e9cialistes concern\u00e9s, de loin ou de pr\u00e8s, par le th\u00e8me d\u00e9battu. Les uns y auront particip\u00e9 tout au long, les autres pour une p\u00e9riode plus courte. Le temps se trouvait r\u00e9parti entre expos\u00e9s, discussions et lectures de textes, les actes maintenant publi\u00e9s ne refl\u00e9tant en cons\u00e9quence et, malgr\u00e9 les dimensions de l\u2019ouvrage, qu\u2019une partie des contributions qui ont scand\u00e9 ces journ\u00e9es d\u2019\u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nNous tirons ces d\u00e9tails de l\u2019Introduction (p. 9-12) que signe P. Crone (Princeton), la responsable de la r\u00e9union et qu\u2019on peut consid\u00e9rer comme la premi\u00e8re \u00e9ditrice scientifique du volume collectif, \u00e0 en juger, entre autres, par les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences qui lui sont faites dans les remerciements de plusieurs des coauteurs. On conna\u00eet, du reste, son ouvrage de fond, Gods Rule Government in Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Columbia UP, New York, 2004), qui a fourni l\u2019occasion de r\u00e9unir les coll\u00e8gues int\u00e9ress\u00e9s autour de l\u2019une des composantes de cette pens\u00e9e, pens\u00e9e dont l\u2019analyse s\u2019av\u00e8re tellement actuelle en fonction de la conjoncture internationale. \u00c0 ce propos, on ne manquera pas de saluer l\u2019id\u00e9e de publier les fruits de cette r\u00e9flexion, men\u00e9e dans une institution occidentale lointaine, au c\u0153ur m\u00eame de la r\u00e9gion o\u00f9 l\u2019orientation politique de la religion est \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb intens\u00e9ment, m\u00eame si le p\u00e9riodique en cause appartient \u00e0 une institution acad\u00e9mique mi-\u00e9trang\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nL\u2019ouvrage s\u2019ouvre par une grosse \u00e9tude sur le r\u00e9alisme de la pens\u00e9e politique grecque, dont l\u2019auteur figure parmi les cinq co\u00e9diteurs de l\u2019ouvrage : \u2013 Eckart Sch\u00fctrumpf (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder), Imperfect Regimes for Imperfect Human Beings: Variations of Infractions of Justice, p. 9-36.\r\n\r\nPr\u00e9c\u00e9dant les textes traitant directement du sujet, une s\u00e9rie de cinq contributions \u00e9tudie la r\u00e9ception des id\u00e9es politiques de la Gr\u00e8ce antique durant la Basse Antiquit\u00e9 et nous offre un tableau g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de la pens\u00e9e politique du Moyen-Orient \u00e0 la veille de l\u2019apparition de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Sarah Pearce (Univ. of Southampton), King Moses: Notes on Philo\u2019s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses, p. 37-74 (avec de longues citations de texte) ; \u2013 Harold A. Drake (Univ. of California Santa Barbara), The Eusabian Template, p. 75-88 ; \u2013 Dominic J. O\u2019Meara (Univ. de Fribourg), Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum, chap. 32), p. 89-98 (rappelons qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un disciple de Damascius, exil\u00e9 avec son ma\u00eetre en Perse, lors de la suppression de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes par Justinien) ; \u2013 Henri Hugonnard-Roche (EPHE, Sorbonne-Paris), \u00c9thique et politique au premier \u00e2ge de la tradition syriaque, p. 99-119 (s\u2019int\u00e9resse plus \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9thique personnelle, certes avec ses implications sociales, qu\u2019\u00e0 la politique de la cit\u00e9) ; \u2013 John W. Watt (Cardiff Univ., Wales), Syriac and Syrians as Mediators of Greek Political Thought to Islam, p. 121-149.\r\n\r\nLes deux expos\u00e9s suivants mettent en relief un aspect jusqu\u2019ici peu relev\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir : l\u2019importance de la tradition perse sassanide dans la tradition moyen-orientale aux d\u00e9buts de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Kevin van Bladel (Univ. of Southern California Los Angeles), The Iranian Chracteristics and Forged Greek Attributions in the Arabic Sirr al-asr\u0101r (Secret of Secrets), p. 151-172 ; \u2013 Mohsen Zakeri (J.W. Goethe-Univ., Frankfurt), The Persian Content of an Arabic Collection of Aphorisms, p. 173-190 (1).\r\n\r\nUne double conclusion ressort de ces deux \u00e9tudes, renforc\u00e9e par la lecture de plusieurs des pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes : d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, la diffusion certaine de la pens\u00e9e grecque en territoire iranien et, de l\u2019autre, l\u2019impact ind\u00e9niable de la tradition persane dans l\u2019ensemble du Moyen-Orient. En cons\u00e9quence, l\u2019islam naissant a rencontr\u00e9 une r\u00e9alit\u00e9 culturelle fruit du croisement de ce double courant, m\u00eame si le prestige de l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00e9tait plus grand au moment de l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la culture musulmane classique.\r\n\r\nP. Crone est consciente de cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9, allant m\u00eame jusqu\u2019\u00e0 affirmer qu\u2019au-del\u00e0 du mouvement de traductions avec la cha\u00eene de production litt\u00e9raire qui s\u2019en est suivie, somme toute accessible \u00e0 des milieux restreints, le background hell\u00e9no-iranien en question a constitu\u00e9 les v\u00e9ritables bases de la culture islamique globalement parlant (p. 9). \u00c0 ce propos, elle situe les d\u00e9buts du mouvement de traductions au milieu du viie si\u00e8cle avec l\u2019\u00e9mergence de la dynastie abbasside. Or, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment dans le domaine de la philosophie politique, herm\u00e9tisme et cycle d\u2019Alexandre le Grand compris, des recherches r\u00e9centes (Grignaschi, entre autres) prouvent que des textes importants avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 connus d\u00e8s la seconde p\u00e9riode omeyyade, \u00e0 savoir d\u00e8s les d\u00e9buts de ce m\u00eame si\u00e8cle. \r\nLa plupart des interventions traitant du th\u00e8me central sont consacr\u00e9es au \u00ab Faylas\u016bf al-isl\u0101m \u00bb. La derni\u00e8re, celle sur les textes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, fait partie de ce groupe, dans la mesure o\u00f9 al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b est le plus grand repr\u00e9sentant de ce courant en islam : \u2013 P. Crone, Al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s Imperfect Constitutions, p. 191-228 ; \u2013 Emma Gannag\u00e9 (USJ), Y a-t-il une pens\u00e9e politique dans le Kit\u0101b al-\u1e24ur\u016bf d\u2019al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b ?, p. 229-257 ; \u2013 Dimitri Gutas (Yale Univ. ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), The Meaning of madan\u012b in F.\u2019s \u201c Political \u201d Philosophy, p. 259-282 ; \u2013 Nelly Lahoud (Goucher College, Baltimore), F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b: on Religion and Philosophy, p. 283-302 (position qui annonce celle \u00ab sensationnelle \u00bb d\u2019Ibn Ru\u0161d, que nous trouverons plus loin). \u2013 Georges Tamer (Friedrich-Alexander-Univ., Erlangen-N\u00fcrnberg), Politisches Denkens in pseudoplatonischen arabischen Schriften, p. 303-335 (les diff\u00e9rents textes connus sous le nom de Naw\u0101m\u012bs [Afl\u0101\u1e6d\u016bn], avec de longs extraits de l\u2019un d\u2019eux).\r\n\r\nDeux autres articles abordent des textes de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme fatimide, o\u00f9 les influences grecques apparaissent, somme toute, n\u00e9gligeables : \u2013 Carmela Baffioni (Univ. degli Studi di Napoli \u201c L\u2019Orientale \u201d), Temporal and Religious Connotations of the \u201c Regal Policy \u201d in the Ikhw\u0101n al-\u1e62af\u0101, p. 337-365 ; \u2013 Paul E. Walker (Univ. of Chicago), \u201c In Praise of al-\u1e24\u0101kim \u201d. Greek Elements in Ismaili Writings on the Imamate, p. 367-392 (longues citations de textes de la 2e g\u00e9n\u00e9ration de du\u02bf\u0101\u2019 ; noter la mise au point en appendice sur les v\u00e9ritables relations de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme avec la falsafa, p. 389 et s.).\r\n\r\nD\u00e9laissant curieusement le grand Avicenne, sur lequel il y eut quand m\u00eame deux \u00ab texts papers \u00bb qui ne figurent pas dans notre volume, celui-ci passe \u00e0 al-\u0120azz\u0101l\u012b : \u2013 Jules Janssens (Katholieke Univ. Leuven), Al-Ghazz\u0101l\u012b\u2019s Political Thought: Elements of Greek Philosophical Influence, p. 393-410.\r\n\r\nLa difficult\u00e9 d\u2019un expos\u00e9 sur la mati\u00e8re tient du fait de l\u2019existence de spuria dans la transmission textuelle d\u2019une \u0153uvre qui scelle, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, la p\u00e9riode classique. \u00c0 notre avis, l\u2019auteur aurait d\u00fb donner plus d\u2019attention dans son analyse \u00e0 deux facteurs suppl\u00e9mentaires : le public auquel s\u2019adressait le th\u00e9ologien-soufi (philosophes et \u00e9rudits ou bien l\u2019umma en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral) et la chronologie de ses \u00e9crits, vu que la prise du pouvoir par les Sel\u010d\u016bks a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9terminante dans le changement de ses positions politiques. Cela a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9cemment mis en \u00e9vidence, du moins au niveau de l\u2019imamat et du sultanat, dans le chapitre correspondant de l\u2019ouvrage d\u2019O. Safi (2).\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude originale, on trouvera, de plus, une analyse circonstanci\u00e9e de la pens\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00ab artisan \u00bb de cette nouvelle soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et de sa culture, Ni\u1e93\u0101m al-Mulk. Ainsi donc, la lacune qu\u2019exprimait P. Crone dans son Introduction (p. 11-12), pour des raisons qui ne peuvent lui \u00eatre imput\u00e9es (emp\u00eachement des sp\u00e9cialistes contact\u00e9s\u2026), pourra \u00eatre partiellement combl\u00e9e. Mais ce serait surtout l\u2019ouvrage de M. Allam qui r\u00e9pondrait le mieux \u00e0 la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 ressentie de suivre les d\u00e9veloppements post\u00e9rieurs de la philosophie politique en islam iranien et oriental (3). On notera que l\u2019auteur y analyse, en particulier, la post\u00e9rit\u00e9 du A\u1e2bl\u0101q-i N\u0101\u1e63ir\u012b du polygraphe ism\u0101\u02bf\u012blien N\u0101\u1e63ir al-D\u012bn al-T\u016bs\u012b (1201-1274), qui se situe bien dans la ligne de la pens\u00e9e gr\u00e9co-musulmane.\r\n\r\nMais \u00e0 d\u00e9faut de cet Orient, l\u2019ouvrage poursuit avec les penseurs d\u2019Occident. \u00c0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de deux expos\u00e9s qui n\u2019y ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 inclus, trois portent sur les deux plus grands repr\u00e9sentants de cette tradition : \u2013 Maroun Awad (CNRS, Paris ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), Does Averroes Have a Philosophy of History?, p. 411-441 ; \u2013 Charles E. Butterworth (Univ. of Maryland, College Park), The Essential Accidents of Human Social Organization in the Muqaddima of Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 443-467 ; \u2013 Abdesselam Cheddadi (Univ. Mohammed V, Rabat), La tradition philosophique et scientifique gr\u00e9co-arabe dans la Muqaddima d\u2019Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 469-497.\r\n\r\nLes deux derniers articles offrent une perspective comparative quant \u00e0 la r\u00e9ception de la pens\u00e9e antique dans le monoth\u00e9isme \u00ab rival \u00bb (si l\u2019on peut s\u2019exprimer ainsi), qu\u2019il soit de couleur orientale ou occidentale : \u2013 Dimiter G. Angelov (Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo), Plato, Aristotle and \u201c Byzantine Political Philosophy \u201d, p. 499-523 ; \u2013 Cary J. Nederman (Texas A & M Univ.), Imperfect Regimes in the Christian Political Thought of Medieval Europe: from the Fathers to the Fourteenth Century, p. 525-551 (le mot \u00ab Fathers \u00bb est utilis\u00e9 abusivement, dans la mesure o\u00f9 l\u2019unique \u00ab P\u00e8re de l\u2019\u00c9glise \u00bb abord\u00e9 ici est Isidore de S\u00e9ville, le dernier de langue latine !).\r\nLe volume se termine sur une bibliographie d\u00e9taill\u00e9e des sources et des \u00e9tudes cit\u00e9es (p. 553-594) et un index des noms propres, anciens et modernes (p. 595-608). Si l\u2019on consid\u00e8re de plus l\u2019ampleur du sujet et la qualit\u00e9, en m\u00eame temps que les dimensions, des diff\u00e9rentes \u00e9tudes, l\u2019ouvrage se pr\u00e9sente en fait comme un manuel de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence et une bonne introduction \u00e0 la philosophie politique de tradition gr\u00e9co-islamique. Il vient ainsi enrichir et compl\u00e9ter la biblioth\u00e8que qui s\u2019est progressivement accumul\u00e9e, ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies autour de la question.\r\nAdel Sidarus\r\nUniversit\u00e9 d\u2019Evora","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vUA05cpGz8q7urg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":303,"pubplace":"Beyrouth","publisher":"Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale - Dar El-Machreq","series":"M\u00e9langes de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 Saint-Joseph","volume":"57","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus, 2004
By: Betegh, Gábor, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	37-50
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Betegh, Gábor
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc

The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide, 2004
By: Sellars, J. T., Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	239-268
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sellars, J. T.
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies containing further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: [l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. The focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to Byzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, Byzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual commentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very useful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine Comprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more recent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now supplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z

Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	47-87
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius, 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 metriopathie 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). Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, 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, Jamblique et Proclus. David (Élias) pour sa part nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès. Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète, 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 (προτρεπτικοί). Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d’exhortations non techniques aptes à fournir l’instruction éthique préparatoire dont le débutant en philosophie devait déjà être imprégné. Dès lors, il fallait qu’il interprète le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l’éthique stoïcienne culminant dans l’apatheia du sage stoïcien, comme cela aurait été normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie péripatéticienne. En procédant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le système éthique néoplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d’une manière tout à fait étonnante et sans jointure apparente, l’éthique du stoïcisme, évidemment sans ses bases matérialistes, l’éthique de l’Ancienne Académie et l’éthique péripatéticienne. Le néoplatonisme avait admis en effet, à partir de Porphyre, l’existence de quatre degrés de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus « politiques » ou « civiles » ou « pratiques », impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c’est-à-dire la metriopathie péripatéticienne. En revanche, les degrés de vertu supérieurs se fondaient sur l’apatheia stoïcienne. Comme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s’adressaient à des débutants, cette œuvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la préparation au premier degré des vertus, donc aux vertus « civiles » ou « politiques » régies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caractérisent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropriées, comme leur nom l’indique, au citoyen vertueux, c’est-à-dire à quelqu’un qui prend activement part à la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d’après les péripatéticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe néoplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou même les vertus théorétiques. L’homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l’explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-même, c’est-à-dire sur son âme raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-même, donc vers son âme raisonnable, de vouloir réaliser cette « conversion », est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu’un qui est désormais désireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c’est à ce genre d’hommes que s’adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxième partie du Manuel (à partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s’agit pas de ceux qui seraient déjà en possession des vertus cathartiques ni même des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progrès vers l’acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagnée de l’étude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la même la première condition pour pouvoir plus tard, après s’être longuement familiarisés avec les études philosophiques, acquérir les vertus cathartiques. Le Manuel d’Épictète s’adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une première partie, à ceux qui n’ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer à purifier leurs mœurs et leur âme, autrement dit, à soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles à la raison. La deuxième partie concernerait ceux qui ont déjà fait des progrès sur le chemin qui mène à la domination des passions et commencent à s’intéresser à la philosophie elle-même. Dans les deux cas, il s’agit de débutants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s’initier à la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JJVi9durYJt0iuG

Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	183-211
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Nous avons vu, à l’aide de plusieurs exemples, la manière dont le néoplatonicien Simplicius avait commenté un texte stoïcien. Nous avons constaté que Simplicius ne peut s’empêcher de réintroduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure où ses auditeurs ou lecteurs débutants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines néoplatoniciennes très complexes, qui n’ont rien à voir avec le texte du Manuel. Les conclusions que l’on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la méthode exégétique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur Épictète, mais également pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caractérise la méthode exégétique de Simplicius commentant les traités d’Aristote, c’est la simplicité et l’objectivité. Il en conclut que, puisque l’auteur du commentaire du De anima d’Aristote attribué à Simplicius donne libre cours à son interprétation néoplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut être l’auteur de ce commentaire. Il est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les œuvres de logique, le néoplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d’occasions d’introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va déjà autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s’agit du De anima, traité qui se plaçait, dans le cursus néoplatonicien, immédiatement avant la Métaphysique d’Aristote, et qui abordait des problèmes métaphysiques, la situation était toute différente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines néoplatoniciennes différaient largement de celles d’Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver à chaque pas l’harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote revenait à un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente différence de méthode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l’âme que professaient Aristote et les néoplatoniciens. Plus généralement, quand on compare la position d’un stoïcien comme Épictète concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d’un néoplatonicien, en l’occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d’autonomie à l’égard du divin chez le philosophe néoplatonicien. Le stoïcien, en s’appuyant exclusivement sur la cohérence de son système et sur la force de sa raison, qu’il croit apte à diriger une vie vertueuse s’il est décidé à la suivre, se considère maître autonome de sa relation à Dieu. La question du salut de son âme après sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui. Il en va autrement du philosophe néoplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son âme, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement systématisée et abstraite et d’une vie vertueuse, de l’aide des dieux, en partie obtenue grâce à des rites qu’il croit transmis par des « révélations ». Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses païennes, ressemble finalement à celle du christianisme recourant à des rites et des sacrements. À vrai dire, lorsqu'il s’agit du philosophe néoplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la théurgie correspondant à son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, à une union mystique avec l’Un ou l’Ineffable. Mais tandis que Plotin arrivait à cette union par des moyens autonomes, les néoplatoniciens à partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d’y arriver tout à fait par eux-mêmes ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs âmes dans leur patrie sans l’aide d’un certain rituel. Il persiste néanmoins de grandes différences entre la « religion » néoplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d’autres religions qui ont la prétention de posséder seules la vérité. La plus importante de ces différences, à mes yeux, consiste en la tolérance et l’ouverture d’esprit vis-à-vis des religions étrangères. Nous avons vu comment les néoplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des différents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences étaient des manifestations d’une même divinité, appropriées à la diversité des régions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux différentes religions localement implantées une sorte d’égalité de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu’on arrivait en qualité d’étranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux différent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et même s’y conformer au moins extérieurement. Cet esprit d’ouverture et de tolérance religieuse s’est largement perdu avec la fin de l’Antiquité gréco-romaine et nous fait tellement défaut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi Épictète, auraient certainement approuvé les mots du préfet païen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la décision de l’empereur chrétien de faire enlever de la salle du Sénat romain l’autel de la Victoire : « Nous contemplons les mêmes astres, le ciel nous est commun, le même monde nous enveloppe. Qu’importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la vérité ? À un si grand mystère on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. » [conclusion p. 208-211]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi

L'interprétation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	L'interprétation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	143-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d’Épictète, qui compare la vie humaine à un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d’une interprétation allégorique de la parabole qui s’efforce de nous en faire découvrir le sens caché. En voici la traduction : "Or, il me semble qu’il a introduit un exemple imaginé d’une manière tout à fait appropriée. Car la mer, parce qu’elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agitées, qu’elle change d’une manière si variée, qu’elle étouffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l’analogie qu’elle présente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu’elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les âmes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d’Heimarmenê ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait être le dieu, lui qui, par ses prévoyantes pensées, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d’une manière adaptée au mérite (kat’ axian) de chacun, l’univers et la descente des âmes dans le devenir. L’entrée du navire au port, c’est la mise en place des âmes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c’est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendrées en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d’eau, c’est le soin des choses nécessaires à la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu’y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus nécessaire que l’eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l’on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-même l’exégèse d’une manière appropriée : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propriété, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont données par le Tout ; il faut les recevoir sans doute, mais non pas comme objets principaux de notre choix, ni comme biens qui nous soient propres. Le principal, en effet, c’est d’être tendu et tourné perpétuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut même pas s’intéresser à ces choses, comme si elles étaient nécessaires de la même manière que la provision d’eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose véritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile à la vie." [introduction p. 143-144]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UWgctr8ErscwqR3

Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	127-141
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan général du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte à la discipline du désir. Il invite, sous une forme imagée, à ne pas s’attacher aux personnes qui nous sont chères, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires. Dans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en présence d’une comparaison, parabole ou allégorie. Une allégorie est, pourrait-on dire, une métaphore prolongée. Les parties d’un ensemble structuré et cohérent de réalités ou d’événements (A), ici l’escale d’un navire dans un port, correspondent terme à terme aux parties d’un autre ensemble structuré de réalités ou d’événements (B), ici la vie humaine. L’auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre à son lecteur, que la conduite que l’on est obligé d’avoir dans l’ensemble B doit être analogue à celle qui nous semble nécessaire dans l’ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH

Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interprétation néoplatonicienne de « ce qui dépend de nous », 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interprétation néoplatonicienne de « ce qui dépend de nous »
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	103-125
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

This text discusses Simplicius' commentary on the first chapter of Epictetus' Manual, focusing selectively on a specific part of its development. The commentary examines the initial two sentences of the chapter, addressing the distinction between things within human control and those beyond it. This division leads to a classification of rational souls into first souls, which remain consistently oriented towards the Good, and human rational souls. The latter are characterized by their capacity for choice (deliberate choice or προαίρεσις), which is absent in immobile entities and irrational beings. Simplicius emphasizes that the nature of human rational souls allows them to either align with higher ontological realities or be drawn towards lower ones. The freedom of choice extends even to choosing evil, albeit often misguided by the appearance of apparent good. The concept of "what depends on us" is explicated as referring specifically to this deliberate choice. Simplicius' Neoplatonic interpretation culminates in a discussion defending human free will against objections that attribute actions to chance or necessity. While the commentary is not complete, this abstract concludes with the clarification that Simplicius' ontological exposition pertains solely to human rational souls. Further elaboration on objections and responses is anticipated in subsequent sections of the commentary. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4

The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003, 2004
By: Gannagé, Emma (Ed.)

Title	The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	Beyrouth
Publisher	Bibliothèque Orientale - Dar El-Machreq
Series	Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph
Volume	57
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gannagé, Emma
Translator(s)

Review: Durant deux semaines s’est réuni ce symposium de spécialistes concernés, de loin ou de près, par le thème débattu. Les uns y auront participé tout au long, les autres pour une période plus courte. Le temps se trouvait réparti entre exposés, discussions et lectures de textes, les actes maintenant publiés ne reflétant en conséquence et, malgré les dimensions de l’ouvrage, qu’une partie des contributions qui ont scandé ces journées d’étude. Nous tirons ces détails de l’Introduction (p. 9-12) que signe P. Crone (Princeton), la responsable de la réunion et qu’on peut considérer comme la première éditrice scientifique du volume collectif, à en juger, entre autres, par les références qui lui sont faites dans les remerciements de plusieurs des coauteurs. On connaît, du reste, son ouvrage de fond, Gods Rule Government in Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Columbia UP, New York, 2004), qui a fourni l’occasion de réunir les collègues intéressés autour de l’une des composantes de cette pensée, pensée dont l’analyse s’avère tellement actuelle en fonction de la conjoncture internationale. À ce propos, on ne manquera pas de saluer l’idée de publier les fruits de cette réflexion, menée dans une institution occidentale lointaine, au cœur même de la région où l’orientation politique de la religion est « vécue » intensément, même si le périodique en cause appartient à une institution académique mi-étrangère. L’ouvrage s’ouvre par une grosse étude sur le réalisme de la pensée politique grecque, dont l’auteur figure parmi les cinq coéditeurs de l’ouvrage : – Eckart Schütrumpf (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder), Imperfect Regimes for Imperfect Human Beings: Variations of Infractions of Justice, p. 9-36. Précédant les textes traitant directement du sujet, une série de cinq contributions étudie la réception des idées politiques de la Grèce antique durant la Basse Antiquité et nous offre un tableau général de la pensée politique du Moyen-Orient à la veille de l’apparition de l’islam : – Sarah Pearce (Univ. of Southampton), King Moses: Notes on Philo’s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses, p. 37-74 (avec de longues citations de texte) ; – Harold A. Drake (Univ. of California Santa Barbara), The Eusabian Template, p. 75-88 ; – Dominic J. O’Meara (Univ. de Fribourg), Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum, chap. 32), p. 89-98 (rappelons qu’il s’agit d’un disciple de Damascius, exilé avec son maître en Perse, lors de la suppression de l’École d’Athènes par Justinien) ; – Henri Hugonnard-Roche (EPHE, Sorbonne-Paris), Éthique et politique au premier âge de la tradition syriaque, p. 99-119 (s’intéresse plus à l’éthique personnelle, certes avec ses implications sociales, qu’à la politique de la cité) ; – John W. Watt (Cardiff Univ., Wales), Syriac and Syrians as Mediators of Greek Political Thought to Islam, p. 121-149. Les deux exposés suivants mettent en relief un aspect jusqu’ici peu relevé, à savoir : l’importance de la tradition perse sassanide dans la tradition moyen-orientale aux débuts de l’islam : – Kevin van Bladel (Univ. of Southern California Los Angeles), The Iranian Chracteristics and Forged Greek Attributions in the Arabic Sirr al-asrār (Secret of Secrets), p. 151-172 ; – Mohsen Zakeri (J.W. Goethe-Univ., Frankfurt), The Persian Content of an Arabic Collection of Aphorisms, p. 173-190 (1). Une double conclusion ressort de ces deux études, renforcée par la lecture de plusieurs des précédentes : d’un côté, la diffusion certaine de la pensée grecque en territoire iranien et, de l’autre, l’impact indéniable de la tradition persane dans l’ensemble du Moyen-Orient. En conséquence, l’islam naissant a rencontré une réalité culturelle fruit du croisement de ce double courant, même si le prestige de l’hellénisme était plus grand au moment de l’élaboration de la culture musulmane classique. P. Crone est consciente de cette réalité, allant même jusqu’à affirmer qu’au-delà du mouvement de traductions avec la chaîne de production littéraire qui s’en est suivie, somme toute accessible à des milieux restreints, le background helléno-iranien en question a constitué les véritables bases de la culture islamique globalement parlant (p. 9). À ce propos, elle situe les débuts du mouvement de traductions au milieu du viie siècle avec l’émergence de la dynastie abbasside. Or, précisément dans le domaine de la philosophie politique, hermétisme et cycle d’Alexandre le Grand compris, des recherches récentes (Grignaschi, entre autres) prouvent que des textes importants avaient été connus dès la seconde période omeyyade, à savoir dès les débuts de ce même siècle. La plupart des interventions traitant du thème central sont consacrées au « Faylasūf al-islām ». La dernière, celle sur les textes néoplatoniciens, fait partie de ce groupe, dans la mesure où al-Fārābī est le plus grand représentant de ce courant en islam : – P. Crone, Al-Fārābī’s Imperfect Constitutions, p. 191-228 ; – Emma Gannagé (USJ), Y a-t-il une pensée politique dans le Kitāb al-Ḥurūf d’al-Fārābī ?, p. 229-257 ; – Dimitri Gutas (Yale Univ. ; l’un des coéditeurs), The Meaning of madanī in F.’s “ Political ” Philosophy, p. 259-282 ; – Nelly Lahoud (Goucher College, Baltimore), Fārābī: on Religion and Philosophy, p. 283-302 (position qui annonce celle « sensationnelle » d’Ibn Rušd, que nous trouverons plus loin). – Georges Tamer (Friedrich-Alexander-Univ., Erlangen-Nürnberg), Politisches Denkens in pseudoplatonischen arabischen Schriften, p. 303-335 (les différents textes connus sous le nom de Nawāmīs [Aflāṭūn], avec de longs extraits de l’un d’eux). Deux autres articles abordent des textes de l’ismaïlisme fatimide, où les influences grecques apparaissent, somme toute, négligeables : – Carmela Baffioni (Univ. degli Studi di Napoli “ L’Orientale ”), Temporal and Religious Connotations of the “ Regal Policy ” in the Ikhwān al-Ṣafā, p. 337-365 ; – Paul E. Walker (Univ. of Chicago), “ In Praise of al-Ḥākim ”. Greek Elements in Ismaili Writings on the Imamate, p. 367-392 (longues citations de textes de la 2e génération de duʿā’ ; noter la mise au point en appendice sur les véritables relations de l’ismaïlisme avec la falsafa, p. 389 et s.). Délaissant curieusement le grand Avicenne, sur lequel il y eut quand même deux « texts papers » qui ne figurent pas dans notre volume, celui-ci passe à al-Ġazzālī : – Jules Janssens (Katholieke Univ. Leuven), Al-Ghazzālī’s Political Thought: Elements of Greek Philosophical Influence, p. 393-410. La difficulté d’un exposé sur la matière tient du fait de l’existence de spuria dans la transmission textuelle d’une œuvre qui scelle, d’une certaine manière, la période classique. À notre avis, l’auteur aurait dû donner plus d’attention dans son analyse à deux facteurs supplémentaires : le public auquel s’adressait le théologien-soufi (philosophes et érudits ou bien l’umma en général) et la chronologie de ses écrits, vu que la prise du pouvoir par les Selčūks a été déterminante dans le changement de ses positions politiques. Cela a été récemment mis en évidence, du moins au niveau de l’imamat et du sultanat, dans le chapitre correspondant de l’ouvrage d’O. Safi (2). Dans cette étude originale, on trouvera, de plus, une analyse circonstanciée de la pensée de l’« artisan » de cette nouvelle société et de sa culture, Niẓām al-Mulk. Ainsi donc, la lacune qu’exprimait P. Crone dans son Introduction (p. 11-12), pour des raisons qui ne peuvent lui être imputées (empêchement des spécialistes contactés…), pourra être partiellement comblée. Mais ce serait surtout l’ouvrage de M. Allam qui répondrait le mieux à la nécessité ressentie de suivre les développements postérieurs de la philosophie politique en islam iranien et oriental (3). On notera que l’auteur y analyse, en particulier, la postérité du Aḫlāq-i Nāṣirī du polygraphe ismāʿīlien Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Tūsī (1201-1274), qui se situe bien dans la ligne de la pensée gréco-musulmane. Mais à défaut de cet Orient, l’ouvrage poursuit avec les penseurs d’Occident. À côté de deux exposés qui n’y ont pas été inclus, trois portent sur les deux plus grands représentants de cette tradition : – Maroun Awad (CNRS, Paris ; l’un des coéditeurs), Does Averroes Have a Philosophy of History?, p. 411-441 ; – Charles E. Butterworth (Univ. of Maryland, College Park), The Essential Accidents of Human Social Organization in the Muqaddima of Ibn Khaldūn, p. 443-467 ; – Abdesselam Cheddadi (Univ. Mohammed V, Rabat), La tradition philosophique et scientifique gréco-arabe dans la Muqaddima d’Ibn Khaldūn, p. 469-497. Les deux derniers articles offrent une perspective comparative quant à la réception de la pensée antique dans le monothéisme « rival » (si l’on peut s’exprimer ainsi), qu’il soit de couleur orientale ou occidentale : – Dimiter G. Angelov (Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo), Plato, Aristotle and “ Byzantine Political Philosophy ”, p. 499-523 ; – Cary J. Nederman (Texas A & M Univ.), Imperfect Regimes in the Christian Political Thought of Medieval Europe: from the Fathers to the Fourteenth Century, p. 525-551 (le mot « Fathers » est utilisé abusivement, dans la mesure où l’unique « Père de l’Église » abordé ici est Isidore de Séville, le dernier de langue latine !). Le volume se termine sur une bibliographie détaillée des sources et des études citées (p. 553-594) et un index des noms propres, anciens et modernes (p. 595-608). Si l’on considère de plus l’ampleur du sujet et la qualité, en même temps que les dimensions, des différentes études, l’ouvrage se présente en fait comme un manuel de référence et une bonne introduction à la philosophie politique de tradition gréco-islamique. Il vient ainsi enrichir et compléter la bibliothèque qui s’est progressivement accumulée, ces dernières décennies autour de la question. Adel Sidarus Université d’Evora

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vUA05cpGz8q7urg

{"_index":"sire","_id":"303","_score":null,"_source":{"id":303,"authors_free":[{"id":2407,"entry_id":303,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":467,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","free_first_name":"Emma","free_last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":467,"first_name":" Emma","last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102294063","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003","main_title":{"title":"The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003"},"abstract":"Review: Durant deux semaines s\u2019est r\u00e9uni ce symposium de sp\u00e9cialistes concern\u00e9s, de loin ou de pr\u00e8s, par le th\u00e8me d\u00e9battu. Les uns y auront particip\u00e9 tout au long, les autres pour une p\u00e9riode plus courte. Le temps se trouvait r\u00e9parti entre expos\u00e9s, discussions et lectures de textes, les actes maintenant publi\u00e9s ne refl\u00e9tant en cons\u00e9quence et, malgr\u00e9 les dimensions de l\u2019ouvrage, qu\u2019une partie des contributions qui ont scand\u00e9 ces journ\u00e9es d\u2019\u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nNous tirons ces d\u00e9tails de l\u2019Introduction (p. 9-12) que signe P. Crone (Princeton), la responsable de la r\u00e9union et qu\u2019on peut consid\u00e9rer comme la premi\u00e8re \u00e9ditrice scientifique du volume collectif, \u00e0 en juger, entre autres, par les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences qui lui sont faites dans les remerciements de plusieurs des coauteurs. On conna\u00eet, du reste, son ouvrage de fond, Gods Rule Government in Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Columbia UP, New York, 2004), qui a fourni l\u2019occasion de r\u00e9unir les coll\u00e8gues int\u00e9ress\u00e9s autour de l\u2019une des composantes de cette pens\u00e9e, pens\u00e9e dont l\u2019analyse s\u2019av\u00e8re tellement actuelle en fonction de la conjoncture internationale. \u00c0 ce propos, on ne manquera pas de saluer l\u2019id\u00e9e de publier les fruits de cette r\u00e9flexion, men\u00e9e dans une institution occidentale lointaine, au c\u0153ur m\u00eame de la r\u00e9gion o\u00f9 l\u2019orientation politique de la religion est \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb intens\u00e9ment, m\u00eame si le p\u00e9riodique en cause appartient \u00e0 une institution acad\u00e9mique mi-\u00e9trang\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nL\u2019ouvrage s\u2019ouvre par une grosse \u00e9tude sur le r\u00e9alisme de la pens\u00e9e politique grecque, dont l\u2019auteur figure parmi les cinq co\u00e9diteurs de l\u2019ouvrage : \u2013 Eckart Sch\u00fctrumpf (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder), Imperfect Regimes for Imperfect Human Beings: Variations of Infractions of Justice, p. 9-36.\r\n\r\nPr\u00e9c\u00e9dant les textes traitant directement du sujet, une s\u00e9rie de cinq contributions \u00e9tudie la r\u00e9ception des id\u00e9es politiques de la Gr\u00e8ce antique durant la Basse Antiquit\u00e9 et nous offre un tableau g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de la pens\u00e9e politique du Moyen-Orient \u00e0 la veille de l\u2019apparition de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Sarah Pearce (Univ. of Southampton), King Moses: Notes on Philo\u2019s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses, p. 37-74 (avec de longues citations de texte) ; \u2013 Harold A. Drake (Univ. of California Santa Barbara), The Eusabian Template, p. 75-88 ; \u2013 Dominic J. O\u2019Meara (Univ. de Fribourg), Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum, chap. 32), p. 89-98 (rappelons qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un disciple de Damascius, exil\u00e9 avec son ma\u00eetre en Perse, lors de la suppression de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes par Justinien) ; \u2013 Henri Hugonnard-Roche (EPHE, Sorbonne-Paris), \u00c9thique et politique au premier \u00e2ge de la tradition syriaque, p. 99-119 (s\u2019int\u00e9resse plus \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9thique personnelle, certes avec ses implications sociales, qu\u2019\u00e0 la politique de la cit\u00e9) ; \u2013 John W. Watt (Cardiff Univ., Wales), Syriac and Syrians as Mediators of Greek Political Thought to Islam, p. 121-149.\r\n\r\nLes deux expos\u00e9s suivants mettent en relief un aspect jusqu\u2019ici peu relev\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir : l\u2019importance de la tradition perse sassanide dans la tradition moyen-orientale aux d\u00e9buts de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Kevin van Bladel (Univ. of Southern California Los Angeles), The Iranian Chracteristics and Forged Greek Attributions in the Arabic Sirr al-asr\u0101r (Secret of Secrets), p. 151-172 ; \u2013 Mohsen Zakeri (J.W. Goethe-Univ., Frankfurt), The Persian Content of an Arabic Collection of Aphorisms, p. 173-190 (1).\r\n\r\nUne double conclusion ressort de ces deux \u00e9tudes, renforc\u00e9e par la lecture de plusieurs des pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes : d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, la diffusion certaine de la pens\u00e9e grecque en territoire iranien et, de l\u2019autre, l\u2019impact ind\u00e9niable de la tradition persane dans l\u2019ensemble du Moyen-Orient. En cons\u00e9quence, l\u2019islam naissant a rencontr\u00e9 une r\u00e9alit\u00e9 culturelle fruit du croisement de ce double courant, m\u00eame si le prestige de l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00e9tait plus grand au moment de l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la culture musulmane classique.\r\n\r\nP. Crone est consciente de cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9, allant m\u00eame jusqu\u2019\u00e0 affirmer qu\u2019au-del\u00e0 du mouvement de traductions avec la cha\u00eene de production litt\u00e9raire qui s\u2019en est suivie, somme toute accessible \u00e0 des milieux restreints, le background hell\u00e9no-iranien en question a constitu\u00e9 les v\u00e9ritables bases de la culture islamique globalement parlant (p. 9). \u00c0 ce propos, elle situe les d\u00e9buts du mouvement de traductions au milieu du viie si\u00e8cle avec l\u2019\u00e9mergence de la dynastie abbasside. Or, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment dans le domaine de la philosophie politique, herm\u00e9tisme et cycle d\u2019Alexandre le Grand compris, des recherches r\u00e9centes (Grignaschi, entre autres) prouvent que des textes importants avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 connus d\u00e8s la seconde p\u00e9riode omeyyade, \u00e0 savoir d\u00e8s les d\u00e9buts de ce m\u00eame si\u00e8cle. \r\nLa plupart des interventions traitant du th\u00e8me central sont consacr\u00e9es au \u00ab Faylas\u016bf al-isl\u0101m \u00bb. La derni\u00e8re, celle sur les textes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, fait partie de ce groupe, dans la mesure o\u00f9 al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b est le plus grand repr\u00e9sentant de ce courant en islam : \u2013 P. Crone, Al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s Imperfect Constitutions, p. 191-228 ; \u2013 Emma Gannag\u00e9 (USJ), Y a-t-il une pens\u00e9e politique dans le Kit\u0101b al-\u1e24ur\u016bf d\u2019al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b ?, p. 229-257 ; \u2013 Dimitri Gutas (Yale Univ. ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), The Meaning of madan\u012b in F.\u2019s \u201c Political \u201d Philosophy, p. 259-282 ; \u2013 Nelly Lahoud (Goucher College, Baltimore), F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b: on Religion and Philosophy, p. 283-302 (position qui annonce celle \u00ab sensationnelle \u00bb d\u2019Ibn Ru\u0161d, que nous trouverons plus loin). \u2013 Georges Tamer (Friedrich-Alexander-Univ., Erlangen-N\u00fcrnberg), Politisches Denkens in pseudoplatonischen arabischen Schriften, p. 303-335 (les diff\u00e9rents textes connus sous le nom de Naw\u0101m\u012bs [Afl\u0101\u1e6d\u016bn], avec de longs extraits de l\u2019un d\u2019eux).\r\n\r\nDeux autres articles abordent des textes de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme fatimide, o\u00f9 les influences grecques apparaissent, somme toute, n\u00e9gligeables : \u2013 Carmela Baffioni (Univ. degli Studi di Napoli \u201c L\u2019Orientale \u201d), Temporal and Religious Connotations of the \u201c Regal Policy \u201d in the Ikhw\u0101n al-\u1e62af\u0101, p. 337-365 ; \u2013 Paul E. Walker (Univ. of Chicago), \u201c In Praise of al-\u1e24\u0101kim \u201d. Greek Elements in Ismaili Writings on the Imamate, p. 367-392 (longues citations de textes de la 2e g\u00e9n\u00e9ration de du\u02bf\u0101\u2019 ; noter la mise au point en appendice sur les v\u00e9ritables relations de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme avec la falsafa, p. 389 et s.).\r\n\r\nD\u00e9laissant curieusement le grand Avicenne, sur lequel il y eut quand m\u00eame deux \u00ab texts papers \u00bb qui ne figurent pas dans notre volume, celui-ci passe \u00e0 al-\u0120azz\u0101l\u012b : \u2013 Jules Janssens (Katholieke Univ. Leuven), Al-Ghazz\u0101l\u012b\u2019s Political Thought: Elements of Greek Philosophical Influence, p. 393-410.\r\n\r\nLa difficult\u00e9 d\u2019un expos\u00e9 sur la mati\u00e8re tient du fait de l\u2019existence de spuria dans la transmission textuelle d\u2019une \u0153uvre qui scelle, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, la p\u00e9riode classique. \u00c0 notre avis, l\u2019auteur aurait d\u00fb donner plus d\u2019attention dans son analyse \u00e0 deux facteurs suppl\u00e9mentaires : le public auquel s\u2019adressait le th\u00e9ologien-soufi (philosophes et \u00e9rudits ou bien l\u2019umma en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral) et la chronologie de ses \u00e9crits, vu que la prise du pouvoir par les Sel\u010d\u016bks a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9terminante dans le changement de ses positions politiques. Cela a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9cemment mis en \u00e9vidence, du moins au niveau de l\u2019imamat et du sultanat, dans le chapitre correspondant de l\u2019ouvrage d\u2019O. Safi (2).\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude originale, on trouvera, de plus, une analyse circonstanci\u00e9e de la pens\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00ab artisan \u00bb de cette nouvelle soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et de sa culture, Ni\u1e93\u0101m al-Mulk. Ainsi donc, la lacune qu\u2019exprimait P. Crone dans son Introduction (p. 11-12), pour des raisons qui ne peuvent lui \u00eatre imput\u00e9es (emp\u00eachement des sp\u00e9cialistes contact\u00e9s\u2026), pourra \u00eatre partiellement combl\u00e9e. Mais ce serait surtout l\u2019ouvrage de M. Allam qui r\u00e9pondrait le mieux \u00e0 la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 ressentie de suivre les d\u00e9veloppements post\u00e9rieurs de la philosophie politique en islam iranien et oriental (3). On notera que l\u2019auteur y analyse, en particulier, la post\u00e9rit\u00e9 du A\u1e2bl\u0101q-i N\u0101\u1e63ir\u012b du polygraphe ism\u0101\u02bf\u012blien N\u0101\u1e63ir al-D\u012bn al-T\u016bs\u012b (1201-1274), qui se situe bien dans la ligne de la pens\u00e9e gr\u00e9co-musulmane.\r\n\r\nMais \u00e0 d\u00e9faut de cet Orient, l\u2019ouvrage poursuit avec les penseurs d\u2019Occident. \u00c0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de deux expos\u00e9s qui n\u2019y ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 inclus, trois portent sur les deux plus grands repr\u00e9sentants de cette tradition : \u2013 Maroun Awad (CNRS, Paris ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), Does Averroes Have a Philosophy of History?, p. 411-441 ; \u2013 Charles E. Butterworth (Univ. of Maryland, College Park), The Essential Accidents of Human Social Organization in the Muqaddima of Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 443-467 ; \u2013 Abdesselam Cheddadi (Univ. Mohammed V, Rabat), La tradition philosophique et scientifique gr\u00e9co-arabe dans la Muqaddima d\u2019Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 469-497.\r\n\r\nLes deux derniers articles offrent une perspective comparative quant \u00e0 la r\u00e9ception de la pens\u00e9e antique dans le monoth\u00e9isme \u00ab rival \u00bb (si l\u2019on peut s\u2019exprimer ainsi), qu\u2019il soit de couleur orientale ou occidentale : \u2013 Dimiter G. Angelov (Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo), Plato, Aristotle and \u201c Byzantine Political Philosophy \u201d, p. 499-523 ; \u2013 Cary J. Nederman (Texas A & M Univ.), Imperfect Regimes in the Christian Political Thought of Medieval Europe: from the Fathers to the Fourteenth Century, p. 525-551 (le mot \u00ab Fathers \u00bb est utilis\u00e9 abusivement, dans la mesure o\u00f9 l\u2019unique \u00ab P\u00e8re de l\u2019\u00c9glise \u00bb abord\u00e9 ici est Isidore de S\u00e9ville, le dernier de langue latine !).\r\nLe volume se termine sur une bibliographie d\u00e9taill\u00e9e des sources et des \u00e9tudes cit\u00e9es (p. 553-594) et un index des noms propres, anciens et modernes (p. 595-608). Si l\u2019on consid\u00e8re de plus l\u2019ampleur du sujet et la qualit\u00e9, en m\u00eame temps que les dimensions, des diff\u00e9rentes \u00e9tudes, l\u2019ouvrage se pr\u00e9sente en fait comme un manuel de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence et une bonne introduction \u00e0 la philosophie politique de tradition gr\u00e9co-islamique. Il vient ainsi enrichir et compl\u00e9ter la biblioth\u00e8que qui s\u2019est progressivement accumul\u00e9e, ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies autour de la question.\r\nAdel Sidarus\r\nUniversit\u00e9 d\u2019Evora","btype":4,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vUA05cpGz8q7urg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":467,"full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":303,"pubplace":"Beyrouth","publisher":"Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale - Dar El-Machreq","series":"M\u00e9langes de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 Saint-Joseph","volume":"57","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien, 2004
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Pierre

Title	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2004
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Librairie générale française
Series	Le livre de poche : références
Volume	603
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epictète, œuvre stoïcienne majeure du IIe siècle de notre ère, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel rédigé trois siècles plus tard par le néoplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces œuvres, de leurs caractéristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'étude de quelques thèmes choisis (la distinction de " ce qui dépend de nous " et de " ce qui ne dépend pas de nous ", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la piété, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et à la mort. Par là, ce livre à deux voix représente aussi et avant tout une méditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activité philosophique dans l'Antiquité ; comme l'écrivent les auteurs : " En utilisant la méthode exégétique, nous avons eu l'intention de répondre à une interrogation, à la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on à philosopher dans l'Antiquité ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de précieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z

{"_index":"sire","_id":"218","_score":null,"_source":{"id":218,"authors_free":[{"id":279,"entry_id":218,"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":280,"entry_id":218,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","main_title":{"title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien"},"abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1, 2004
By: Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Institute of Classical Studies
Series	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)
Volume	Supplement 83.1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji’s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nqTHgI2QahbENt5

{"_index":"sire","_id":"233","_score":null,"_source":{"id":233,"authors_free":[{"id":297,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":298,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":299,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1"},"abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","btype":4,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.1–9’, 2004
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.1–9’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Durckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Aristotle believed that the outermost stars are carried round us on a transparent sphere. There are directions in the universe and a preferred direction of rotation. The sun moon and planets are carried on different revolving spheres. The spheres and celestial bodies are composed of an everlasting fifth element, which has none of the ordinary contrary properties like heat and cold which could destroy it, but only the facility for uniform rotation. But this creates problems as to how the heavenly bodies create light, and, in the case of the sun, heat. The value of Simplicius' commentary on On the Heavens 2,1-9 lies both in its preservation of the lost comments of Alexander and in Simplicius' controversy with him. The two of them discuss not only the problem mentioned, but also whether soul and nature move the spheres as two distinct forces or as one. Alexander appears to have simplified Aristotle's system of 55 spheres down to seven, and some hints may be gleaned as to whether, simplifying further, he thinks there are seven ultimate movers, or only one. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RgaRgqo4soBSmOr

{"_index":"sire","_id":"101","_score":null,"_source":{"id":101,"authors_free":[{"id":118,"entry_id":101,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2283,"entry_id":101,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2284,"entry_id":101,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 2.1\u20139\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 2.1\u20139\u2019"},"abstract":"Aristotle believed that the outermost stars are carried round us on a transparent sphere. There are directions in the universe and a preferred direction of rotation. The sun moon and planets are carried on different revolving spheres. The spheres and celestial bodies are composed of an everlasting fifth element, which has none of the ordinary contrary properties like heat and cold which could destroy it, but only the facility for uniform rotation. But this creates problems as to how the heavenly bodies create light, and, in the case of the sun, heat. The value of Simplicius' commentary on On the Heavens 2,1-9 lies both in its preservation of the lost comments of Alexander and in Simplicius' controversy with him. The two of them discuss not only the problem mentioned, but also whether soul and nature move the spheres as two distinct forces or as one. Alexander appears to have simplified Aristotle's system of 55 spheres down to seven, and some hints may be gleaned as to whether, simplifying further, he thinks there are seven ultimate movers, or only one. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RgaRgqo4soBSmOr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":101,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Durckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.5-9’, 2004
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.5-9’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hankinson, R. J.(Hankinson, Robert J.) ,

A discourse between Simplicius and Aristotle on whether there is more than one physical world and whether the universe exists beyond the outermost stars. Here, Simplicius tells of the different theories of acceleration in Greek philosophy. Aristotle argues in On the Heavens 1.5-7 that there can be no infinitely large body, and in 1.8-9 that there cannot be more than one physical world. As a corollary in 1.9, he infers that there is no place, vacuum or time beyond the outermost stars. As one argument in favour of a single world, he argues that his four elements: earth, air, fire and water, have only one natural destination apiece. Moreover they accelerate as they approach it and acceleration cannot be unlimited. However, the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who wrote the commentary in the sixth century AD (here translated into English), tells us that this whole world view was to be rejected by Strato, the third head of Aristotle's school. At the same time, he tells us the different theories of acceleration in Greek philosophy. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6Ua20q85giOX0BF

{"_index":"sire","_id":"108","_score":null,"_source":{"id":108,"authors_free":[{"id":128,"entry_id":108,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":168,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hankinson, R. J.","free_first_name":"R. J.","free_last_name":"Hankinson","norm_person":{"id":168,"first_name":"Robert J.","last_name":"Hankinson","full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","short_ident":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129477370","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2247,"entry_id":108,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius, Cilicius","free_first_name":"Cilicius","free_last_name":"Simplicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.5-9\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.5-9\u2019"},"abstract":"A discourse between Simplicius and Aristotle on whether there is more than one physical world and whether the universe exists beyond the outermost stars. Here, Simplicius tells of the different theories of acceleration in Greek philosophy.\r\nAristotle argues in On the Heavens 1.5-7 that there can be no infinitely large body, and in 1.8-9 that there cannot be more than one physical world. As a corollary in 1.9, he infers that there is no place, vacuum or time beyond the outermost stars. As one argument in favour of a single world, he argues that his four elements: earth, air, fire and water, have only one natural destination apiece. Moreover they accelerate as they approach it and acceleration cannot be unlimited. However, the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who wrote the commentary in the sixth century AD (here translated into English), tells us that this whole world view was to be rejected by Strato, the third head of Aristotle's school. At the same time, he tells us the different theories of acceleration in Greek philosophy. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6Ua20q85giOX0BF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":168,"full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":108,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Traité du ciel d'Aristote (In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke, 2004
By: Simplicius, Bossier, Fernand (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Traité du ciel d'Aristote (In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2004
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	Corpus Latinum commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum
Volume	8
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Bossier, Fernand
Translator(s)	von Moerbeke, Wilhelm(von Moerbeke, Wilhelm) ,

Composé vers les années 540 sous l'empereur Justinien le commentaire de Simplicius sur le traité Du ciel d'Aristote est un document de première importance pour l'étude de la cosmologie et de l'astronomie grecques. Seul parmi les commentaires grecs sur ce traité il s'est conservé dans la langue originale. Simplicius nous documente amplement sur la manière dont Aristote discute les idées cosmologiques des Présocratiques et de Platon, il illustre l'interprétation et la sauvegarde ultérieures du fondement de la cosmologie aristotélicienne dans les commentaires d'Alexandre d'Aphrodisias et des penseurs néoplatoniciens, et, enfin, il s'indigne du rejet catégorique de la conception aristotélicienne du monde astral dans les âpres invectives du chrétien Jean Philopon. Ainsi son commentaire nous instruit sur un mouvement philosophique et scientifique qui s'est étendu sur dix siècles. Après avoir préparé la première traduction gréco-latine du traité Du ciel, Guillaume de Moerbeke nous a fourni encore une traduction intégrale du commentaire de Simplicius, achevée en 1271. Sa traduction du traité aristotélicien constitue le texte de base de l'Expositio in libros de Celo et Mundo de Thomas d'Aquin, qui dès le début de son exposé se réfère régulièrement à la traduction du commentaire de Simplicius. Dans les universités d'Occident cette traduction contribuera à l'interprétation de la pensée cosmologique d'Aristote jusqu'à son déclin dans les dernières décennies du XVIe siècle. Vers la fin du XIXe siècle cette même traduction latine, seul témoin tout à fait complet du texte original, a joué un rôle de premier plan dans le repérage et la restauration de l'original grec par le savant danois I.L. Heiberg. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aIBKcwHm8NsOefI

{"_index":"sire","_id":"130","_score":null,"_source":{"id":130,"authors_free":[{"id":161,"entry_id":130,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":490,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"von Moerbeke","norm_person":{"id":490,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"von Moerbeke","full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118633007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2473,"entry_id":130,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2517,"entry_id":130,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Trait\u00e9 du ciel d'Aristote (In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Trait\u00e9 du ciel d'Aristote (In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke"},"abstract":"Compos\u00e9 vers les ann\u00e9es 540 sous l'empereur Justinien le commentaire de Simplicius sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel d'Aristote est un document de premi\u00e8re importance pour l'\u00e9tude de la cosmologie et de l'astronomie grecques. Seul parmi les commentaires grecs sur ce trait\u00e9 il s'est conserv\u00e9 dans la langue originale. Simplicius nous documente amplement sur la mani\u00e8re dont Aristote discute les id\u00e9es cosmologiques des Pr\u00e9socratiques et de Platon, il illustre l'interpr\u00e9tation et la sauvegarde ult\u00e9rieures du fondement de la cosmologie aristot\u00e9licienne dans les commentaires d'Alexandre d'Aphrodisias et des penseurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens, et, enfin, il s'indigne du rejet cat\u00e9gorique de la conception aristot\u00e9licienne du monde astral dans les \u00e2pres invectives du chr\u00e9tien Jean Philopon. Ainsi son commentaire nous instruit sur un mouvement philosophique et scientifique qui s'est \u00e9tendu sur dix si\u00e8cles. Apr\u00e8s avoir pr\u00e9par\u00e9 la premi\u00e8re traduction gr\u00e9co-latine du trait\u00e9 Du ciel, Guillaume de Moerbeke nous a fourni encore une traduction int\u00e9grale du commentaire de Simplicius, achev\u00e9e en 1271. Sa traduction du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien constitue le texte de base de l'Expositio in libros de Celo et Mundo de Thomas d'Aquin, qui d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but de son expos\u00e9 se r\u00e9f\u00e8re r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement \u00e0 la traduction du commentaire de Simplicius. Dans les universit\u00e9s d'Occident cette traduction contribuera \u00e0 l'interpr\u00e9tation de la pens\u00e9e cosmologique d'Aristote jusqu'\u00e0 son d\u00e9clin dans les derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies du XVIe si\u00e8cle. Vers la fin du XIXe si\u00e8cle cette m\u00eame traduction latine, seul t\u00e9moin tout \u00e0 fait complet du texte original, a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le de premier plan dans le rep\u00e9rage et la restauration de l'original grec par le savant danois I.L. Heiberg. [official abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aIBKcwHm8NsOefI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":490,"full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":130,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Corpus Latinum commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung, 2004
By: Thiel, Rainer

Title	Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2004
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Series	Philosophische Untersuchungen
Volume	11
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Thiel, Rainer
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle's Categories are still widely seen as being incompatible with both Aristotle's later analysis of ousia (in Metaphysics Z) and Plato's ontology. Porphyry's attempt to make sense of this work within a Neoplatonic context is considered, in turn, both as failing to do justice to Aristotle and as directed against Plotinus' purported criticism of Aristotle's Categories . Rainer Thiel shows that the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that go back to Prophyry's reading can be viewed as a valid interpretation of Aristotle which does not contradict Plotinus' view, but in fact can be traced back to him. Plotinus himself does not criticize Aristotle; he does however criticize certain middle-Platonic readings of the Categories. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XddENwtj5FJ59XC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"52","_score":null,"_source":{"id":52,"authors_free":[{"id":60,"entry_id":52,"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}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung"},"abstract":"Aristotle's Categories are still widely seen as being incompatible with both Aristotle's later analysis of ousia (in Metaphysics Z) and Plato's ontology. Porphyry's attempt to make sense of this work within a Neoplatonic context is considered, in turn, both as failing to do justice to Aristotle and as directed against Plotinus' purported criticism of Aristotle's Categories . Rainer Thiel shows that the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that go back to Prophyry's reading can be viewed as a valid interpretation of Aristotle which does not contradict Plotinus' view, but in fact can be traced back to him. Plotinus himself does not criticize Aristotle; he does however criticize certain middle-Platonic readings of the Categories. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XddENwtj5FJ59XC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":333,"full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":52,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"Philosophische Untersuchungen","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro, 2004
By: Rescigno, Andrea (Ed.), Alexander Aphrodisiensis,

Title	Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2004
Publication Place	Amsterdam
Publisher	Hakkert
Series	Supplementi di Lexis
Volume	26
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Alexander Aphrodisiensis
Editor(s)	Rescigno, Andrea
Translator(s)	Rescigno, Andrea(Rescigno, Andrea) .

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tu72sBCDmGrvNf3

{"_index":"sire","_id":"59","_score":null,"_source":{"id":59,"authors_free":[{"id":67,"entry_id":59,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Rescigno","norm_person":{"id":500,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Rescigno","full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2480,"entry_id":59,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":501,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Aphrodisiensis","free_first_name":"Alexander","free_last_name":"Aphrodisiensis","norm_person":{"id":501,"first_name":"Alexander","last_name":"Aphrodisiensis","full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118501887","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2481,"entry_id":59,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","norm_person":{"id":500,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Rescigno","full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro","main_title":{"title":"Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tu72sBCDmGrvNf3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":500,"full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":501,"full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":500,"full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":59,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"Supplementi di Lexis","volume":"26","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

La pensée s'exprime «grâce» à l'être (Parménide, fr. 8.35), 2004
By: Cordero, Néstor-Luis

Title	La pensée s'exprime «grâce» à l'être (Parménide, fr. 8.35)
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2004
Journal	Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger
Volume	194
Issue	1
Pages	5-13
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Peu de temps après la mort de son père spirituel, Platon n'hésite pas à rendre un hommage appuyé au « vénérable et redoutable » Parménide ; mais, en même temps, il ne peut pas s'empêcher d'avouer : étant donné sa profondeur (bathos), « je crains tout à la fois que ses paroles, nous ne les comprenions pas, et que ce qu'il pensait en les prononçant nous dépasse beaucoup plus ». Mais ce que Platon ne dit pas, c'est que cette difficulté l'a poussé à essayer de déchiffrer le logos parménidien. Vingt-cinq siècles après, Marcel Conche en a fait autant, et c'est sur le chemin de Parménide que j'ai eu la chance et le grand honneur de faire sa connaissance. Et je peux témoigner que Platon avait raison : la pensée de Parménide nous a tellement dépassés qu'elle a pu être à l'origine d'interprétations très diverses et, même si l'Éléate était surpris d'apprendre qu'il était à la fois un et multiple, il faut admettre que le chemin de recherche qu'il a inauguré reste ouvert, car sa richesse est inépuisable. Le dialogue que je voudrais entamer avec Marcel Conche concerne l'un des passages les plus controversés du Poème, l'énigmatique vers 8.35. Nous nous sommes occupés de ce texte dans notre travail Les deux chemins de Parménide, et Marcel Conche a commenté avec perspicacité notre interprétation, mais il n'a pas été convaincu par le texte que nous proposons de suivre à la place du texte traditionnel. Je voudrais renforcer les arguments donnés il y a quelques années dans le travail cité ci-dessus, car les échos de la lecture (il ne s'agit pas d'une conjecture) que nous proposons n'ont été que très restreints, malgré les points obscurs que notre solution permet d'éclairer. Regardons donc le contexte de ce passage. [introduction p. 5-6]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GrJltxCHr2iNGon

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1279","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1279,"authors_free":[{"id":1868,"entry_id":1279,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La pens\u00e9e s'exprime \u00abgr\u00e2ce\u00bb \u00e0 l'\u00eatre (Parm\u00e9nide, fr. 8.35)","main_title":{"title":"La pens\u00e9e s'exprime \u00abgr\u00e2ce\u00bb \u00e0 l'\u00eatre (Parm\u00e9nide, fr. 8.35)"},"abstract":"Peu de temps apr\u00e8s la mort de son p\u00e8re spirituel, Platon n'h\u00e9site pas \u00e0 rendre un hommage appuy\u00e9 au \u00ab v\u00e9n\u00e9rable et redoutable \u00bb Parm\u00e9nide ; mais, en m\u00eame temps, il ne peut pas s'emp\u00eacher d'avouer : \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 sa profondeur (bathos), \u00ab je crains tout \u00e0 la fois que ses paroles, nous ne les comprenions pas, et que ce qu'il pensait en les pronon\u00e7ant nous d\u00e9passe beaucoup plus \u00bb. Mais ce que Platon ne dit pas, c'est que cette difficult\u00e9 l'a pouss\u00e9 \u00e0 essayer de d\u00e9chiffrer le logos parm\u00e9nidien. Vingt-cinq si\u00e8cles apr\u00e8s, Marcel Conche en a fait autant, et c'est sur le chemin de Parm\u00e9nide que j'ai eu la chance et le grand honneur de faire sa connaissance. Et je peux t\u00e9moigner que Platon avait raison : la pens\u00e9e de Parm\u00e9nide nous a tellement d\u00e9pass\u00e9s qu'elle a pu \u00eatre \u00e0 l'origine d'interpr\u00e9tations tr\u00e8s diverses et, m\u00eame si l'\u00c9l\u00e9ate \u00e9tait surpris d'apprendre qu'il \u00e9tait \u00e0 la fois un et multiple, il faut admettre que le chemin de recherche qu'il a inaugur\u00e9 reste ouvert, car sa richesse est in\u00e9puisable.\r\n\r\nLe dialogue que je voudrais entamer avec Marcel Conche concerne l'un des passages les plus controvers\u00e9s du Po\u00e8me, l'\u00e9nigmatique vers 8.35. Nous nous sommes occup\u00e9s de ce texte dans notre travail Les deux chemins de Parm\u00e9nide, et Marcel Conche a comment\u00e9 avec perspicacit\u00e9 notre interpr\u00e9tation, mais il n'a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 convaincu par le texte que nous proposons de suivre \u00e0 la place du texte traditionnel. Je voudrais renforcer les arguments donn\u00e9s il y a quelques ann\u00e9es dans le travail cit\u00e9 ci-dessus, car les \u00e9chos de la lecture (il ne s'agit pas d'une conjecture) que nous proposons n'ont \u00e9t\u00e9 que tr\u00e8s restreints, malgr\u00e9 les points obscurs que notre solution permet d'\u00e9clairer. Regardons donc le contexte de ce passage. [introduction p. 5-6]","btype":3,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GrJltxCHr2iNGon","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1279,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'\u00c9tranger","volume":"194","issue":"1","pages":"5-13"}},"sort":[2004]}

Neue Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (1995-2003). Teil II, 2004
By: Steel, Carlos, Helmig, Christoph

Title	Neue Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (1995-2003). Teil II
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2004
Journal	Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie
Volume	29
Pages	225-247
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos , Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Dieser Artikel berichtete über weniger als zehn Jahre Forschung im Bereich des Neuplatonismus. Und doch ist es erfreulich festzustellen, wie viel seit Mitte der 90er Jahre zustande gekommen ist, auch wenn es für die Zukunft noch viel zu tun gibt. Die Aufgabe stellt sich in doppelter Hinsicht: philologisch und philosophisch. In erster Linie ist es notwendig, das so rasant angewachsene Interesse für die neuplatonische Philosophie dahingehend zu nutzen, dass die Editionen und kommentierten Übersetzungen wichtiger Texte weitergeführt werden. Das ist eine intensive, mühevolle und oft undankbare Arbeit, weil so etwas im heutigen „Forschungsklima“ nicht immer in ausreichendem Maße gewürdigt wird. Und dennoch bleibt es eine der drängendsten Aufgaben, und das umso mehr, weil wir befürchten müssen, dass die Kenntnis der alten Sprachen immer weiter zurückgeht. Wie im Mittelalter die antike Philosophie nur überleben und neuen Einfluss gewinnen konnte durch massive Übersetzungsaktivitäten (ins Arabische und Lateinische), so werden in diesem Jahrhundert – ob man es nun bedauert oder nicht – viele neuplatonische Autoren nur noch in Reihen wie „The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle“ oder in anderen Übersetzungen gelesen werden. Darum ist es wichtig, dass die Übersetzungen zuverlässig sind und auf guten Editionen fußen. Es wäre daher wünschenswert, dass gerade auch in Deutschland vermehrt zentrale Texte aus dem späteren Neuplatonismus übersetzt und kommentiert würden. Aber neben dieser Editions- und Übersetzungsarbeit sollte das eigentliche Ziel der Forschung eine philosophische Annäherung sein an diese große Tradition der Geistesgeschichte mit ihren vielfachen kulturellen Verzweigungen im Mittelalter (von Syrien über den Irak und Andalusien bis nach Köln), in der Renaissance und in der Neuzeit. Dabei müssen wir uns aber davor hüten, den Neuplatonismus allzu leicht mit Schwärmerei oder einer Art von Esoterik in Verbindung zu bringen. Er ist und bleibt vor allem eine Philosophie, auch wenn er eine Philosophie ist, die rational die Grenzen der Rationalität einsieht. Gerade in der deutschsprachigen Forschung haben wir schöne Beispiele für ein fruchtbares Zusammengehen von philologischer akribeia und philosophischer Annäherung. Ein Paradigma einer solchen Forschung am Neuplatonismus bleiben für uns die zahlreichen philosophisch anregenden Arbeiten von Werner Beierwaltes. [p. 246-247]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/J1gdFPhAmlKlP6l

{"_index":"sire","_id":"481","_score":null,"_source":{"id":481,"authors_free":[{"id":651,"entry_id":481,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":652,"entry_id":481,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neue Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (1995-2003). Teil II","main_title":{"title":"Neue Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (1995-2003). Teil II"},"abstract":"Dieser Artikel berichtete \u00fcber weniger als zehn Jahre Forschung im Bereich des Neuplatonismus. Und doch ist es erfreulich festzustellen, wie viel seit Mitte der 90er Jahre zustande gekommen ist, auch wenn es f\u00fcr die Zukunft noch viel zu tun gibt. Die Aufgabe stellt sich in doppelter Hinsicht: philologisch und philosophisch.\r\n\r\nIn erster Linie ist es notwendig, das so rasant angewachsene Interesse f\u00fcr die neuplatonische Philosophie dahingehend zu nutzen, dass die Editionen und kommentierten \u00dcbersetzungen wichtiger Texte weitergef\u00fchrt werden. Das ist eine intensive, m\u00fchevolle und oft undankbare Arbeit, weil so etwas im heutigen \u201eForschungsklima\u201c nicht immer in ausreichendem Ma\u00dfe gew\u00fcrdigt wird. Und dennoch bleibt es eine der dr\u00e4ngendsten Aufgaben, und das umso mehr, weil wir bef\u00fcrchten m\u00fcssen, dass die Kenntnis der alten Sprachen immer weiter zur\u00fcckgeht.\r\n\r\nWie im Mittelalter die antike Philosophie nur \u00fcberleben und neuen Einfluss gewinnen konnte durch massive \u00dcbersetzungsaktivit\u00e4ten (ins Arabische und Lateinische), so werden in diesem Jahrhundert \u2013 ob man es nun bedauert oder nicht \u2013 viele neuplatonische Autoren nur noch in Reihen wie \u201eThe Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\u201c oder in anderen \u00dcbersetzungen gelesen werden. Darum ist es wichtig, dass die \u00dcbersetzungen zuverl\u00e4ssig sind und auf guten Editionen fu\u00dfen.\r\n\r\nEs w\u00e4re daher w\u00fcnschenswert, dass gerade auch in Deutschland vermehrt zentrale Texte aus dem sp\u00e4teren Neuplatonismus \u00fcbersetzt und kommentiert w\u00fcrden. Aber neben dieser Editions- und \u00dcbersetzungsarbeit sollte das eigentliche Ziel der Forschung eine philosophische Ann\u00e4herung sein an diese gro\u00dfe Tradition der Geistesgeschichte mit ihren vielfachen kulturellen Verzweigungen im Mittelalter (von Syrien \u00fcber den Irak und Andalusien bis nach K\u00f6ln), in der Renaissance und in der Neuzeit.\r\n\r\nDabei m\u00fcssen wir uns aber davor h\u00fcten, den Neuplatonismus allzu leicht mit Schw\u00e4rmerei oder einer Art von Esoterik in Verbindung zu bringen. Er ist und bleibt vor allem eine Philosophie, auch wenn er eine Philosophie ist, die rational die Grenzen der Rationalit\u00e4t einsieht.\r\n\r\nGerade in der deutschsprachigen Forschung haben wir sch\u00f6ne Beispiele f\u00fcr ein fruchtbares Zusammengehen von philologischer akribeia und philosophischer Ann\u00e4herung. Ein Paradigma einer solchen Forschung am Neuplatonismus bleiben f\u00fcr uns die zahlreichen philosophisch anregenden Arbeiten von Werner Beierwaltes. [p. 246-247]","btype":3,"date":"2004","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J1gdFPhAmlKlP6l","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":481,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Allgemeine Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Philosophie","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"225-247"}},"sort":[2004]}

Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition, 2004
By: Fazzo, Silvia, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	1-19
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Fazzo, Silvia
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of research.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, chiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name but with titles different from those familiar to us.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR

The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, 2004
By: Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Taylor, Richard C. (Ed.)

Title	The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	Cambridge
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Taylor, Richard C.
Translator(s)

Philosophy written in Arabic and in the Islamic world represents one of the great traditions of Western philosophy. Inspired by Greek philosophical works and the indigenous ideas of Islamic theology, Arabic philosophers from the ninth century onwards put forward ideas of great philosophical and historical importance. This collection of essays, by some of the leading scholars in Arabic philosophy, provides an introduction to the field by way of chapters devoted to individual thinkers (such as al-Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes) or groups, especially during the 'classical' period from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. It also includes chapters on areas of philosophical inquiry across the tradition, such as ethics and metaphysics. Finally, it includes chapters on later Islamic thought, and on the connections between Arabic philosophy and Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophy. The volume also includes a useful bibliography and a chronology of the most important Arabic thinkers. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CWyIAoel4RYZzMZ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1309","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1309,"authors_free":[{"id":1935,"entry_id":1309,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2343,"entry_id":1309,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":446,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","free_first_name":"Richard C.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":446,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy"},"abstract":"Philosophy written in Arabic and in the Islamic world represents one of the great traditions of Western philosophy. Inspired by Greek philosophical works and the indigenous ideas of Islamic theology, Arabic philosophers from the ninth century onwards put forward ideas of great philosophical and historical importance. This collection of essays, by some of the leading scholars in Arabic philosophy, provides an introduction to the field by way of chapters devoted to individual thinkers (such as al-Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes) or groups, especially during the 'classical' period from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. It also includes chapters on areas of philosophical inquiry across the tradition, such as ethics and metaphysics. Finally, it includes chapters on later Islamic thought, and on the connections between Arabic philosophy and Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophy. The volume also includes a useful bibliography and a chronology of the most important Arabic thinkers. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CWyIAoel4RYZzMZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":446,"full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1309,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle, 2004
By: Karamanolis, George, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	97-120
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB

The Eternity of the World in the Sixth Century: Philoponus, Simplicius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (Honours thesis, University of Melbourne), 2004
By: Champion, M.

Title	The Eternity of the World in the Sixth Century: Philoponus, Simplicius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (Honours thesis, University of Melbourne)
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2004
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Champion, M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lC3PA3DaUFDyp4y

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1434","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1434,"authors_free":[{"id":2263,"entry_id":1434,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":426,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Champion, M.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":426,"first_name":"M.","last_name":"Champion","full_name":"Champion, M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Eternity of the World in the Sixth Century: Philoponus, Simplicius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (Honours thesis, University of Melbourne)","main_title":{"title":"The Eternity of the World in the Sixth Century: Philoponus, Simplicius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (Honours thesis, University of Melbourne)"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lC3PA3DaUFDyp4y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":426,"full_name":"Champion, M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus, 2003
By: Gregory, Andrew, Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2003
Published in	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Pages	5-28
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gregory, Andrew
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V

{"_index":"sire","_id":"658","_score":null,"_source":{"id":658,"authors_free":[{"id":948,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":949,"entry_id":658,"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}},{"id":950,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"},"abstract":"Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus\u2019 theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus\u2019 astronomy, and of Eudoxus\u2019 astronomy, whereby Eudoxus\u2019 work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus\u2019 work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus\u2019 model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuozQiu69DMzr3V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":658,"section_of":157,"pages":"5-28","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}

Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle, 2003
By: Gregory, Andrew, Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2003
Published in	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Pages	29-47
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gregory, Andrew
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized. Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle. What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate. There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well. Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"702","_score":null,"_source":{"id":702,"authors_free":[{"id":1043,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1044,"entry_id":702,"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}},{"id":1045,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"},"abstract":"The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized.\r\n\r\nSome commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call \"atoms\" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.\r\n\r\nWhat is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting \"live\" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant \"dead\" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.\r\n\r\nThere is an important consideration about Aristotle\u2019s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.\r\n\r\nFirstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":702,"section_of":157,"pages":"29-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}

Quelques exemples de scholies dans la tradition arabe des "Éléments" d'Euclide, 2003
By: Djebbar, Ahmed

Title	Quelques exemples de scholies dans la tradition arabe des "Éléments" d'Euclide
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2003
Journal	Revue d'histoire des sciences
Volume	56
Issue	2
Pages	293-321
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Djebbar, Ahmed
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

After describing two important sources of scholia, the manuscripts Teherán Malik 3586 and Leiden Or. 399/1, this article analyzes the different kinds of scholia found in these texts as well as in other mathematical writings of the Arab tradition of Euclid's Elements. The second part of the article provides a modern edition and French translation of some of these previously unpublished scholia. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Gv7BthgX2p0VabW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"756","_score":null,"_source":{"id":756,"authors_free":[{"id":1121,"entry_id":756,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":64,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Djebbar, Ahmed","free_first_name":"Ahmed","free_last_name":"Djebbar","norm_person":{"id":64,"first_name":"Ahmed","last_name":"Djebbar","full_name":"Djebbar, Ahmed","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143395904","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Quelques exemples de scholies dans la tradition arabe des \"\u00c9l\u00e9ments\" d'Euclide","main_title":{"title":"Quelques exemples de scholies dans la tradition arabe des \"\u00c9l\u00e9ments\" d'Euclide"},"abstract":"After describing two important sources of scholia, the manuscripts Teher\u00e1n Malik 3586 and Leiden Or. 399\/1, this article analyzes the different kinds of scholia found in these texts as well as in other mathematical writings of the Arab tradition of Euclid's Elements. The second part of the article provides a modern edition and French translation of some of these previously unpublished scholia. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gv7BthgX2p0VabW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":64,"full_name":"Djebbar, Ahmed","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":756,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d'histoire des sciences","volume":"56","issue":"2","pages":"293-321"}},"sort":[2003]}

Why Does Plato's Element Theory Conflict With Mathematics (Arist. Cael. 299a2-6)?, 2003
By: Kouremenos, Theokritos

Title	Why Does Plato's Element Theory Conflict With Mathematics (Arist. Cael. 299a2-6)?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2003
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	146
Issue	3/4
Pages	328-345
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Kouremenos, Theokritos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Cael. 3.1 Aristotle argues against those who posit that all bodies are generated because they are made from, and dissolve into, planes, namely Plato and perhaps other members of the Academy who subscribed to the Timaeus physics (cf. Simplicius, In Cael. 561,8-11 [Heiberg]). In his Timaeus Plato assigns to each of the traditional Empedoclean elements a regular polyhedron: the tetrahedron or pyramid to fire, the cube to earth, the octahedron to air, and the icosahedron to water. Each regular polyhedron can be anachronistically called a molecule of the element in question, and, as is suggested by the analogy between the regular solids and molecules, Plato also posits that the regular polyhedra are made from 'atoms': the faces of the tetrahedron, octahedron, and icosahedron are made from scalene right-angled triangles, whose hypotenuses are double the length of the smaller sides, whereas the faces of the cube consist of isosceles right-angled triangles. Since fire, air, and water consist of polyhedral molecules whose elementary constituents are of the same type, they can freely change into one another. Any of these three elements turns into another when its molecules break down into their elementary constituents, and these building blocks recombine into molecules of another element. Aristotle has in mind the reshuffling of elementary triangles when he refers to all bodies being made from, and dissolving into, planes. His first objection to this fundamental assumption in Plato's element theory is set out in Cael. 299a2-6: as is easily seen, constructing bodies from planes runs counter to mathematics whose 'hypotheses' should be accepted, unless one comes up with something more convincing. Contrary to Aristotle's claim, it is not easy to see why Plato's element theory runs counter to mathematics because it constructs the polyhedral molecules from the triangular planes in the faces of these molecules. Aristotle presumably implies that this violates some mathematical 'hypotheses' which should be better left as they stand but does not explain what the 'hypotheses' in question are. Nor is it any clearer whether Plato commits himself to the rejection of these 'hypotheses' or some aspect of Plato's element theory entails their rejection by Aristotle's own lights. I will attempt to answer these questions after a critique of Simplicius who identifies the hypotheses in Cael. 299a2-6 with the Euclidean definitions of point, line, and plane but also thinks that Aristotle sets out further mathematical objections to Plato's element theory in Cael. 299a6-11: contrary to the commentator, there is only one such objection in Cael. 299a6-11, namely that Plato's element theory introduces indivisible lines, and, as is suggested by an allusion to Cael. 299a2-6 in the treatise On Indivisible Lines, the same objection is also implicit in Cael. 299a2-6. That in this passage Plato's element theory is said to conflict with mathematics because it entails the existence of indivisible lines is borne out not only by Cael. 299a6-11 but also by 299a13-17. After interpreting the 'hypotheses' in Cael. 299a2-6 consistently with this fact, I will show that, when Aristotle charges Plato with introducing various sorts of indivisibles in his element theory, he actually brings out the untenability of this theory by arguing that Plato ought to introduce such entities which are, though, ruled out by mathematics. Aristotle's implicit objection in Cael. 299a2-6 follows from a similar argument which I will attempt to reconstruct in the final sections of this paper. [introduction p. 328-329]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9EHiPSWuW9oh0c4

{"_index":"sire","_id":"984","_score":null,"_source":{"id":984,"authors_free":[{"id":1485,"entry_id":984,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":219,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kouremenos, Theokritos","free_first_name":"Theokritos","free_last_name":"Kouremenos","norm_person":{"id":219,"first_name":"Theokritos","last_name":"Kouremenos","full_name":"Kouremenos, Theokritos","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113872224","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Why Does Plato's Element Theory Conflict With Mathematics (Arist. Cael. 299a2-6)?","main_title":{"title":"Why Does Plato's Element Theory Conflict With Mathematics (Arist. Cael. 299a2-6)?"},"abstract":"In Cael. 3.1 Aristotle argues against those who posit that all bodies are generated because they are made from, and dissolve into, planes, namely Plato and perhaps other members of the Academy who subscribed to the Timaeus physics (cf. Simplicius, In Cael. 561,8-11 [Heiberg]). In his Timaeus Plato assigns to each of the traditional Empedoclean elements a regular polyhedron: the tetrahedron or pyramid to fire, the cube to earth, the octahedron to air, and the icosahedron to water. Each regular polyhedron can be anachronistically called a molecule of the element in question, and, as is suggested by the analogy between the regular solids and molecules, Plato also posits that the regular polyhedra are made from 'atoms': the faces of the tetrahedron, octahedron, and icosahedron are made from scalene right-angled triangles, whose hypotenuses are double the length of the smaller sides, whereas the faces of the cube consist of isosceles right-angled triangles.\r\n\r\nSince fire, air, and water consist of polyhedral molecules whose elementary constituents are of the same type, they can freely change into one another. Any of these three elements turns into another when its molecules break down into their elementary constituents, and these building blocks recombine into molecules of another element. Aristotle has in mind the reshuffling of elementary triangles when he refers to all bodies being made from, and dissolving into, planes. His first objection to this fundamental assumption in Plato's element theory is set out in Cael. 299a2-6: as is easily seen, constructing bodies from planes runs counter to mathematics whose 'hypotheses' should be accepted, unless one comes up with something more convincing.\r\n\r\nContrary to Aristotle's claim, it is not easy to see why Plato's element theory runs counter to mathematics because it constructs the polyhedral molecules from the triangular planes in the faces of these molecules. Aristotle presumably implies that this violates some mathematical 'hypotheses' which should be better left as they stand but does not explain what the 'hypotheses' in question are. Nor is it any clearer whether Plato commits himself to the rejection of these 'hypotheses' or some aspect of Plato's element theory entails their rejection by Aristotle's own lights. I will attempt to answer these questions after a critique of Simplicius who identifies the hypotheses in Cael. 299a2-6 with the Euclidean definitions of point, line, and plane but also thinks that Aristotle sets out further mathematical objections to Plato's element theory in Cael. 299a6-11: contrary to the commentator, there is only one such objection in Cael. 299a6-11, namely that Plato's element theory introduces indivisible lines, and, as is suggested by an allusion to Cael. 299a2-6 in the treatise On Indivisible Lines, the same objection is also implicit in Cael. 299a2-6.\r\n\r\nThat in this passage Plato's element theory is said to conflict with mathematics because it entails the existence of indivisible lines is borne out not only by Cael. 299a6-11 but also by 299a13-17. After interpreting the 'hypotheses' in Cael. 299a2-6 consistently with this fact, I will show that, when Aristotle charges Plato with introducing various sorts of indivisibles in his element theory, he actually brings out the untenability of this theory by arguing that Plato ought to introduce such entities which are, though, ruled out by mathematics. Aristotle's implicit objection in Cael. 299a2-6 follows from a similar argument which I will attempt to reconstruct in the final sections of this paper. [introduction p. 328-329]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9EHiPSWuW9oh0c4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":219,"full_name":"Kouremenos, Theokritos","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":984,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"146","issue":"3\/4","pages":"328-345"}},"sort":[2003]}

Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschenbild in “Simplikios”’ Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ De anima, 2003
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschenbild in “Simplikios”’ Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ De anima
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2003
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	24
Issue	1
Pages	57-91
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Der Durchgang durch „Simplikios’“ Text hat gezeigt, dass dieser Kommentator mit seiner Theorie der doppelten Formursächlichkeit der Seele bzw. ihres doppelten entelecheia-Seins die funktionale Beziehung der Seele zum Körper in ihren verschiedenen Stufen nach einem einheitlichen Schema erklärt. Immer ist es ein seelisch definiertes Organ, zu dem die Seele in Beziehung tritt. Das anthropologische Ergebnis ist kein Dreischritt Körper-Leib-Seele, sondern eine systematisch durchdachte Definition des Verhältnisses zwischen Körper und Seele: Auf der einen Seite steht nicht ein Stück Materie, sondern ein Lebewesen in der Art eines belebten Körpers, bei dessen Formung Körperliches und Seelisches bereits eine Einheit eingegangen sind, auf der anderen Seite eine Seele, die als die, die sie ist, wesentlich auf die Benutzung dieses Leibes ausgerichtet ist. Dabei ist der Leib von der bloßen Materie ebenso verschieden wie die bewegende Seele vom transzendenten nous, in dem sie ursprünglich wurzelt. Erst im Tod gewinnen nous und Materie wieder ihre Selbständigkeit zurück. Diese Darstellung zeigt, wie „Simplikios“ systematisch mit Aristoteles umgeht: Die Terminologie des Stagiriten integriert er nicht nur in seine eigene philosophische Konzeption, sondern er kann mithilfe dieser Terminologie eine logisch und sachlich konsistente und gut nachvollziehbare Fassung der neuplatonischen Seelenlehre entwickeln. Damit erweist sich die Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles für den neuplatonischen Autor als fruchtbar, ohne dass er sachlich die Grenzen des Neuplatonismus überschreitet. Im neuplatonischen Kontext ist es besonders interessant, dass „Simplikios“ in den beiden Formen von entelecheia durchgehende Charakteristika des Seelischen in der Art sieht, dass jede einzelne Seelenart den Leib in der genannten doppelten Weise verwirklicht. Denn mit der Annahme zweier Arten der Einwirkung der Seele auf den Körper entspricht er einer Struktur, die sich bereits bei Plotin entfaltet findet: Der Leib, mit dem sich die Seele vereinigt, ist bereits durch eine Spur oder ein Bild der Seele auf deren Aufnahme vorbereitet. Bei der Interpretation dieser Stellen wird meistens angenommen, dass dieses „Bild“ der vegetativen Seele entspricht, die von der höheren Seele verschieden ist. Diese Identifizierung wurde jüngst von Ch. Tornau unter Verweis auf Enn. IV 4, 20, 22–5; VI 4, 15, 15 in Zweifel gezogen. Bei „Simplikios“ zeigt sich nun klar, dass dieses Seelenbild ebenso wie die bewegende Formursache, die eigentliche Seele, in jeder einzelnen Seelenart vorhanden ist. Damit wird Tornaus Vermutung zumindest für einen neuplatonischen Autor bestätigt. An diesem Punkt, der für die Systematik des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes überhaupt von Bedeutung ist, ist weitere Forschung nötig, um zu mehr Klarheit über die im Neuplatonismus übliche Lehre und die Abweichungen davon zu gelangen. Das von „Simplikios“ entworfene Bild zeigt, dass die menschliche Seele im späten Neuplatonismus nicht als unsystematische Nebeneinanderstellung verschiedener, mehr oder weniger zwanghaft triadisch geordneter Schichten zu verstehen ist, sondern dass die Philosophen dieser Zeit im Rahmen der Voraussetzungen, die sie für selbstverständlich hielten, ein klares Bild der gegenseitigen Bezogenheit von Seele und Leib entwickeln konnten. Die Einheit zwischen Körper und Seele, wie „Simplikios“ sie schildert, ist keineswegs so locker, wie es manche Überblickswerke zum Neuplatonismus nahelegen: Die Seele, die in der materiellen Welt wirkt und erkennt, ist wesentlich mit dem Körper verbunden und kann ohne diese Verbindung nicht existieren. [conclusion p. 90-91]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/egqTFHmjZlWVg7v

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1087","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1087,"authors_free":[{"id":1643,"entry_id":1087,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschen\u00adbild in \u201cSimplikios\u201d\u2019 Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 De anima","main_title":{"title":"Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschen\u00adbild in \u201cSimplikios\u201d\u2019 Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 De anima"},"abstract":"Der Durchgang durch \u201eSimplikios\u2019\u201c Text hat gezeigt, dass dieser Kommentator mit seiner Theorie der doppelten Formurs\u00e4chlichkeit der Seele bzw. ihres doppelten entelecheia-Seins die funktionale Beziehung der Seele zum K\u00f6rper in ihren verschiedenen Stufen nach einem einheitlichen Schema erkl\u00e4rt. Immer ist es ein seelisch definiertes Organ, zu dem die Seele in Beziehung tritt. Das anthropologische Ergebnis ist kein Dreischritt K\u00f6rper-Leib-Seele, sondern eine systematisch durchdachte Definition des Verh\u00e4ltnisses zwischen K\u00f6rper und Seele:\r\n\r\nAuf der einen Seite steht nicht ein St\u00fcck Materie, sondern ein Lebewesen in der Art eines belebten K\u00f6rpers, bei dessen Formung K\u00f6rperliches und Seelisches bereits eine Einheit eingegangen sind, auf der anderen Seite eine Seele, die als die, die sie ist, wesentlich auf die Benutzung dieses Leibes ausgerichtet ist. Dabei ist der Leib von der blo\u00dfen Materie ebenso verschieden wie die bewegende Seele vom transzendenten nous, in dem sie urspr\u00fcnglich wurzelt. Erst im Tod gewinnen nous und Materie wieder ihre Selbst\u00e4ndigkeit zur\u00fcck.\r\n\r\nDiese Darstellung zeigt, wie \u201eSimplikios\u201c systematisch mit Aristoteles umgeht: Die Terminologie des Stagiriten integriert er nicht nur in seine eigene philosophische Konzeption, sondern er kann mithilfe dieser Terminologie eine logisch und sachlich konsistente und gut nachvollziehbare Fassung der neuplatonischen Seelenlehre entwickeln. Damit erweist sich die Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles f\u00fcr den neuplatonischen Autor als fruchtbar, ohne dass er sachlich die Grenzen des Neuplatonismus \u00fcberschreitet.\r\n\r\nIm neuplatonischen Kontext ist es besonders interessant, dass \u201eSimplikios\u201c in den beiden Formen von entelecheia durchgehende Charakteristika des Seelischen in der Art sieht, dass jede einzelne Seelenart den Leib in der genannten doppelten Weise verwirklicht. Denn mit der Annahme zweier Arten der Einwirkung der Seele auf den K\u00f6rper entspricht er einer Struktur, die sich bereits bei Plotin entfaltet findet:\r\n\r\nDer Leib, mit dem sich die Seele vereinigt, ist bereits durch eine Spur oder ein Bild der Seele auf deren Aufnahme vorbereitet. Bei der Interpretation dieser Stellen wird meistens angenommen, dass dieses \u201eBild\u201c der vegetativen Seele entspricht, die von der h\u00f6heren Seele verschieden ist. Diese Identifizierung wurde j\u00fcngst von Ch. Tornau unter Verweis auf Enn. IV 4, 20, 22\u20135; VI 4, 15, 15 in Zweifel gezogen.\r\n\r\nBei \u201eSimplikios\u201c zeigt sich nun klar, dass dieses Seelenbild ebenso wie die bewegende Formursache, die eigentliche Seele, in jeder einzelnen Seelenart vorhanden ist. Damit wird Tornaus Vermutung zumindest f\u00fcr einen neuplatonischen Autor best\u00e4tigt. An diesem Punkt, der f\u00fcr die Systematik des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes \u00fcberhaupt von Bedeutung ist, ist weitere Forschung n\u00f6tig, um zu mehr Klarheit \u00fcber die im Neuplatonismus \u00fcbliche Lehre und die Abweichungen davon zu gelangen.\r\n\r\nDas von \u201eSimplikios\u201c entworfene Bild zeigt, dass die menschliche Seele im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus nicht als unsystematische Nebeneinanderstellung verschiedener, mehr oder weniger zwanghaft triadisch geordneter Schichten zu verstehen ist, sondern dass die Philosophen dieser Zeit im Rahmen der Voraussetzungen, die sie f\u00fcr selbstverst\u00e4ndlich hielten, ein klares Bild der gegenseitigen Bezogenheit von Seele und Leib entwickeln konnten.\r\n\r\nDie Einheit zwischen K\u00f6rper und Seele, wie \u201eSimplikios\u201c sie schildert, ist keineswegs so locker, wie es manche \u00dcberblickswerke zum Neuplatonismus nahelegen: Die Seele, die in der materiellen Welt wirkt und erkennt, ist wesentlich mit dem K\u00f6rper verbunden und kann ohne diese Verbindung nicht existieren. [conclusion p. 90-91]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/egqTFHmjZlWVg7v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1087,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"57-91"}},"sort":[2003]}

Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus, 2003
By: Baltussen, Han, Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2003
Published in	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Pages	49-71
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza

{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}

Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus, 2003
By: Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2003
Publication Place	University of London
Publisher	Institute of Classical Studies
Series	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume	46, Supplement 78
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UsvEmjeEeL17itA

{"_index":"sire","_id":"157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":157,"authors_free":[{"id":1851,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":1852,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Sheppard","free_last_name":"Anne D.","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}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus"},"abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2003]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 1–4’, 2003
By: Chase, Michael (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 1–4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2003
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Chase, Michael
Translator(s)	Chase, Michael(Chase, Michael ) ,

Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the most comprehensive philosophical critique of the work ever written, representing 600 years of criticism. In his Categories, Aristotle divides what exists in the sensible world into ten categories of Substance, Quantity, Relative, Quality and so on. Simplicius starts with a survey of previous commentators, and an introductory set of questions about Aristotle's philosophy and about the Categories in particular. The commentator, he says, needs to present Plato and Aristotle as in harmony on most things. Why are precisely ten categories named, given that Plato did with fewer distinctions? We have a survey of views on this. And where in the scheme of categories would one fit a quality that defines a substance - under substance or under quality? In his own commentary, Porphyry suggested classifying a defining quality as something distinct, a substantial quality, but others objected that this would constitute an eleventh. The most persistent question dealt with here is whether the categories classify words, concepts, or things. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cfS7TDdDAkqTAAq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"118","_score":null,"_source":{"id":118,"authors_free":[{"id":140,"entry_id":118,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2271,"entry_id":118,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2322,"entry_id":118,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Categories 1\u20134\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Categories 1\u20134\u2019"},"abstract":"Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the most comprehensive philosophical critique of the work ever written, representing 600 years of criticism. In his Categories, Aristotle divides what exists in the sensible world into ten categories of Substance, Quantity, Relative, Quality and so on. Simplicius starts with a survey of previous commentators, and an introductory set of questions about Aristotle's philosophy and about the Categories in particular. The commentator, he says, needs to present Plato and Aristotle as in harmony on most things. Why are precisely ten categories named, given that Plato did with fewer distinctions? We have a survey of views on this. And where in the scheme of categories would one fit a quality that defines a substance - under substance or under quality? In his own commentary, Porphyry suggested classifying a defining quality as something distinct, a substantial quality, but others objected that this would constitute an eleventh. The most persistent question dealt with here is whether the categories classify words, concepts, or things. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cfS7TDdDAkqTAAq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":118,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2003]}

Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 2003
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2003
Journal	Rhein. Museum
Volume	146
Issue	1
Pages	49–71
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts während der römischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich führten enge Beziehungen führender Römer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubertät, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der körperliche Verfall der freien Betätigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bCAQ9Hlrduneobp

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1334","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1334,"authors_free":[{"id":1967,"entry_id":1334,"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}}],"entry_title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit","main_title":{"title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"},"abstract":"Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts w\u00e4hrend der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich f\u00fchrten enge Beziehungen f\u00fchrender R\u00f6mer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubert\u00e4t, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der k\u00f6rperliche Verfall der freien Bet\u00e4tigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bCAQ9Hlrduneobp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1334,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rhein. Museum","volume":"146","issue":"1","pages":"49\u201371"}},"sort":[2003]}

Proclus: On the Existence of Evils, 2003
By: Opsomer, Jan, Steel, Carlos,

Title	Proclus: On the Existence of Evils
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2003
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury Academic
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan , Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Opsomer, Jan() , Steel, Carlos() .

Proclus’ On the Existence of Evils is not a commentary, but helps to compensate for the dearth of Neoplatonist ethical commentaries. The central question addressed in the work is: how can there be evil in a providential world? Neoplatonists agree that it cannot be caused by higher and worthier beings. Plotinus had said that evil is matter, which, unlike Aristotle, he collapsed into mere privation or lack, thus reducing its reality. He also protected higher causes from responsibility by saying that evil may result from a combination of goods. Proclus objects: evil is real, and not a privation. Rather, it is a parasite feeding off good. Parasites have no proper cause, and higher beings are thus vindicated as being the causes only of the good off which evil feeds. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jf422McdNmgpCnP

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1442","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1442,"authors_free":[{"id":2303,"entry_id":1442,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2304,"entry_id":1442,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2657,"entry_id":1442,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null},{"id":2658,"entry_id":1442,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Proclus: On the Existence of Evils","main_title":{"title":"Proclus: On the Existence of Evils"},"abstract":"Proclus\u2019 On the Existence of Evils is not a commentary, but helps to compensate for the dearth of Neoplatonist ethical commentaries. The central question addressed in the work is: how can there be evil in a providential world? Neoplatonists agree that it cannot be caused by higher and worthier beings. Plotinus had said that evil is matter, which, unlike Aristotle, he collapsed into mere privation or lack, thus reducing its reality. He also protected higher causes from responsibility by saying that evil may result from a combination of goods. Proclus objects: evil is real, and not a privation. Rather, it is a parasite feeding off good. Parasites have no proper cause, and higher beings are thus vindicated as being the causes only of the good off which evil feeds. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jf422McdNmgpCnP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1442,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2003]}

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1, 2003
By: Bowen, Alan C., Simplicius

Title	Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2003
Journal	SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences
Volume	4
Pages	23-58
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius’ commentary on Book 2, Chapter 12 of Aristotle’s treatise De caelo. Simplicius’ remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Metaphysics Λ 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. Take any recent history of early Greek astronomy you please, and you will find that its author immediately turns to Simplicius as the source clarifying what Aristotle writes in this chapter of his Metaphysics. Indeed, the main challenge scholars perceive in Simplicius’ commentary is to tease out and reconstruct the underlying mathematical theory that would make it all ‘true.’ Such naïveté is breathtaking. Few who read Simplicius and understand his historiographical project—a search for a truth that Aristotle’s text is supposed to embody rather than a study of the text itself on its own terms—would elevate him to a position of such unquestioned authority. And those who have reflected on the often intractable problems in assessing the truth of ancient reports or testimonia in the sciences will quite naturally decline to take Simplicius at his word in this matter. I recognize, of course, that it is customary to detect errors in Simplicius’ account and to attribute them either to Aristotle or to Simplicius; but this, I fear, typically amounts to little more than a demonstration that we moderns can be speciously clever while taking what Simplicius writes for granted. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius’ comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Metaphysics Λ 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. There is, after all, no extant Greek or Latin text written before the late second century BCE that shows any knowledge of the planetary phenomena of station and retrogradation, which are so central to Simplicius’ commentary. There are also ample signs that Simplicius’ remarks about the history of early astronomy are not a report but a reconstruction occasioned by what Aristotle writes in Metaphysics Λ 8 and the need to explain why the homocentric planetary theory outlined there was later abandoned by Aristotelians. Moreover, Metaphysics Λ 8 is itself underdetermined so far as its presentation of this homocentric theory goes. Indeed, there are other interpretations of this presentation that fit far better than Simplicius’ with what we can find elsewhere in Aristotle’s writings and in documents by other writers of the fourth century. That scholars today persist in reading Metaphysics Λ 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Metaphysics Λ 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern planetary motions, that they would not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and dated to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius’ account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless. Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Metaphysics Λ 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes. Of course, making such a proof will be hard work. Even those sharing the general view that the Greeks of the fourth century were aware of planetary stations and retrogradations do not agree about how these phenomena were understood or explained. In addition, there are my own arguments not only that these texts may be read without supposing such knowledge but also that they should be read without such a supposition, given the contemporaneous evidence of astronomical theory. And finally, there is the largely unrecognized problem that, even if Simplicius’ history of astronomy in Aristotle’s time is anachronistic, it has a simpler interpretation than the one first propounded in the 19th century by Schiaparelli and elaborated to this day. Granted, these scholars may wish to excuse themselves from the charge of wrongly imputing to Simplicius what they perceive as the real meaning of his text, by claiming that Simplicius is preserving material from earlier sources that he does not understand. But should historians today assent to reading an ancient commentary in a way that makes the commentator irrelevant, and should they do this in the expectation that the interpretation offered reflects the thought of some putative source from whom nothing survives for confirmation? My own view is that compounding such a misreading of an ancient literary genre with such untestable faith—or, if you will, unassailable credulity—may have numerous outcomes, but historical knowledge will not be one of them. Few modern historians have examined what Simplicius actually writes—the great tendency is to rely on some learned summary such as that supplied by Heath, who makes accessible in English the pioneering work of Schiaparelli. Accordingly, I here present Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8 so that readers may begin to get their own sense of what is at issue. To this end, I have translated Heiberg’s edition of Simplicius’ commentary on the three narrowly astronomical chapters of the De caelo and have supplied my translation with annotation intended primarily to clarify the technical, scientific meaning. Given the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–11. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius’ account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius’ commentary on 2.10–11 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12. The annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself, by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation. Thus, I do not engage in the details of the interpretations offered by those who assume that the early Greeks were aware of the planetary phenomena so central to Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8. Still, there is a question about just how much annotation is needed by readers of this journal, and I hope that I have not erred too much in following my natural disposition to say less. Simplicius’ Greek is typical of scholastic commentary: elliptical, crabbed, and technical. I have tried to deal with this by supplying in square brackets what is missing whenever this seemed necessary or likely to make the meaning easier for the reader to grasp. At the same time, I have tried, so far as is reasonable and within my ability, to capture Simplicius’ technical vocabulary and to preserve the logical structure of his sentences. This translation has benefited greatly from the generous criticism of earlier versions offered by Bernard R. Goldstein and Robert B. Todd: they have saved me from numerous mistakes and infelicities, and I am most pleased to acknowledge this. Finally, I am very pleased to record my gratitude to Ken Saito, the Managing Editor of SCIAMVS, for his unflagging interest in this project and his encouragement as I pursued it. That my annotated translation appears in SCIAMVS is ample proof of his very kind support and his patience with a historian whose sense of time seems limited to the past. [introduction p. 23-26]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/skKbEWtOO6LigIs

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1479,"authors_free":[{"id":2560,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2601,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1"},"abstract":"If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Book 2, Chapter 12 of Aristotle\u2019s treatise De caelo. Simplicius\u2019 remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Metaphysics \u039b 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. Take any recent history of early Greek astronomy you please, and you will find that its author immediately turns to Simplicius as the source clarifying what Aristotle writes in this chapter of his Metaphysics.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the main challenge scholars perceive in Simplicius\u2019 commentary is to tease out and reconstruct the underlying mathematical theory that would make it all \u2018true.\u2019 Such na\u00efvet\u00e9 is breathtaking. Few who read Simplicius and understand his historiographical project\u2014a search for a truth that Aristotle\u2019s text is supposed to embody rather than a study of the text itself on its own terms\u2014would elevate him to a position of such unquestioned authority. And those who have reflected on the often intractable problems in assessing the truth of ancient reports or testimonia in the sciences will quite naturally decline to take Simplicius at his word in this matter.\r\n\r\nI recognize, of course, that it is customary to detect errors in Simplicius\u2019 account and to attribute them either to Aristotle or to Simplicius; but this, I fear, typically amounts to little more than a demonstration that we moderns can be speciously clever while taking what Simplicius writes for granted.\r\n\r\nI have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius\u2019 comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Metaphysics \u039b 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. There is, after all, no extant Greek or Latin text written before the late second century BCE that shows any knowledge of the planetary phenomena of station and retrogradation, which are so central to Simplicius\u2019 commentary. There are also ample signs that Simplicius\u2019 remarks about the history of early astronomy are not a report but a reconstruction occasioned by what Aristotle writes in Metaphysics \u039b 8 and the need to explain why the homocentric planetary theory outlined there was later abandoned by Aristotelians. Moreover, Metaphysics \u039b 8 is itself underdetermined so far as its presentation of this homocentric theory goes. Indeed, there are other interpretations of this presentation that fit far better than Simplicius\u2019 with what we can find elsewhere in Aristotle\u2019s writings and in documents by other writers of the fourth century.\r\n\r\nThat scholars today persist in reading Metaphysics \u039b 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Metaphysics \u039b 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern planetary motions, that they would not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and dated to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius\u2019 account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Metaphysics \u039b 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes. Of course, making such a proof will be hard work. Even those sharing the general view that the Greeks of the fourth century were aware of planetary stations and retrogradations do not agree about how these phenomena were understood or explained. In addition, there are my own arguments not only that these texts may be read without supposing such knowledge but also that they should be read without such a supposition, given the contemporaneous evidence of astronomical theory.\r\n\r\nAnd finally, there is the largely unrecognized problem that, even if Simplicius\u2019 history of astronomy in Aristotle\u2019s time is anachronistic, it has a simpler interpretation than the one first propounded in the 19th century by Schiaparelli and elaborated to this day. Granted, these scholars may wish to excuse themselves from the charge of wrongly imputing to Simplicius what they perceive as the real meaning of his text, by claiming that Simplicius is preserving material from earlier sources that he does not understand. But should historians today assent to reading an ancient commentary in a way that makes the commentator irrelevant, and should they do this in the expectation that the interpretation offered reflects the thought of some putative source from whom nothing survives for confirmation?\r\n\r\nMy own view is that compounding such a misreading of an ancient literary genre with such untestable faith\u2014or, if you will, unassailable credulity\u2014may have numerous outcomes, but historical knowledge will not be one of them.\r\n\r\nFew modern historians have examined what Simplicius actually writes\u2014the great tendency is to rely on some learned summary such as that supplied by Heath, who makes accessible in English the pioneering work of Schiaparelli. Accordingly, I here present Simplicius\u2019 account of Metaphysics \u039b 8 so that readers may begin to get their own sense of what is at issue.\r\n\r\nTo this end, I have translated Heiberg\u2019s edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the three narrowly astronomical chapters of the De caelo and have supplied my translation with annotation intended primarily to clarify the technical, scientific meaning.\r\n\r\nGiven the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.10\u201311. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius\u2019 account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius\u2019 commentary on 2.10\u201311 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12.\r\n\r\nThe annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself, by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation.\r\n\r\nThus, I do not engage in the details of the interpretations offered by those who assume that the early Greeks were aware of the planetary phenomena so central to Simplicius\u2019 account of Metaphysics \u039b 8. Still, there is a question about just how much annotation is needed by readers of this journal, and I hope that I have not erred too much in following my natural disposition to say less.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 Greek is typical of scholastic commentary: elliptical, crabbed, and technical. I have tried to deal with this by supplying in square brackets what is missing whenever this seemed necessary or likely to make the meaning easier for the reader to grasp. At the same time, I have tried, so far as is reasonable and within my ability, to capture Simplicius\u2019 technical vocabulary and to preserve the logical structure of his sentences.\r\n\r\nThis translation has benefited greatly from the generous criticism of earlier versions offered by Bernard R. Goldstein and Robert B. Todd: they have saved me from numerous mistakes and infelicities, and I am most pleased to acknowledge this.\r\n\r\nFinally, I am very pleased to record my gratitude to Ken Saito, the Managing Editor of SCIAMVS, for his unflagging interest in this project and his encouragement as I pursued it. That my annotated translation appears in SCIAMVS is ample proof of his very kind support and his patience with a historian whose sense of time seems limited to the past. [introduction p. 23-26]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/skKbEWtOO6LigIs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"23-58"}},"sort":[2003]}

The Ṣābians of Ḥarrān and the Classical Tradition, 2002
By: Pingree, David

Title	The Ṣābians of Ḥarrān and the Classical Tradition
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	International Journal of the Classical Tradition
Volume	9
Issue	1
Pages	8-35
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Pingree, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This article addresses questions concerning the characteristics of the paganism of Harran, its eclectic sources, and its development by examining the relationships - real, possible, and fictitious - of various personalities with the city of Harran from Assyrian times till the Mongol attack in 1271. It is suggested that the Sabians used Neoplatonism, which, if Tardieu's analysis is correct, they originally learned from Simplicius, to develop, explain, and justify their practice of astral magic, and that their interest in the Greek astronomy and astrology that astral magic required served to maintain the study and to preserve the texts of these sciences during the centuries in which they were ignored in Byzantium. It is further shown that the Greek philosophical and scientific material available to them was mingled with elements from ancient Mesopotamia, India, Iran, Judaism, and Egypt to form a syncretic system of belief that they could claim to be mankind's original and authentic religion. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Jdb3AO475p5h4e0

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1212","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1212,"authors_free":[{"id":1794,"entry_id":1212,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":292,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Pingree, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Pingree","norm_person":{"id":292,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Pingree","full_name":"Pingree, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u1e62\u0101bians of \u1e24arr\u0101n and the Classical Tradition","main_title":{"title":"The \u1e62\u0101bians of \u1e24arr\u0101n and the Classical Tradition"},"abstract":"This article addresses questions concerning the characteristics of the paganism of Harran, its eclectic sources, and its development by examining the relationships - real, possible, and fictitious - of various personalities with the city of Harran from Assyrian times till the Mongol attack in 1271. It is suggested that the Sabians used Neoplatonism, which, if Tardieu's analysis is correct, they originally learned from Simplicius, to develop, explain, and justify their practice of astral magic, and that their interest in the Greek astronomy and astrology that astral magic required served to maintain the study and to preserve the texts of these sciences during the centuries in which they were ignored in Byzantium. It is further shown that the Greek philosophical and scientific material available to them was mingled with elements from ancient Mesopotamia, India, Iran, Judaism, and Egypt to form a syncretic system of belief that they could claim to be mankind's original and authentic religion. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Jdb3AO475p5h4e0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":292,"full_name":"Pingree, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1212,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"International Journal of the Classical Tradition","volume":"9","issue":"1","pages":"8-35"}},"sort":[2002]}

Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie, 2002
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Kobusch, Theo (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)

Title	Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2002
Published in	Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg
Pages	323-342
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Kobusch, Theo , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)

Der Epiktetkommentar ist dazu bestimmt, dem Leser die sittlichen Grundhaltungen zu vermitteln, ohne die es für ihn nicht förderlich ist, ein Studium der Philosophie zu beginnen. Da es sich somit um eine allgemein gehaltene Einführung handelt, die den Erwerb der bürgerlichen Tugenden mit Hilfe der neuplatonischen Kommentierung des Handbüchleins des Epiktet zum Ziel hat wird im Verfolg des zu kommentierenden Textes eine breite Palette von philosophischen Fragen kurz angesprochen, ohne in die Tiefen des philosophischen Systems vorzudringen. Es ist daher unerlässlich, bei der Interpretierung des Epiktetkommentars über die traditionellen neuplatonischen Lehren informiert zu sein, wenn man den dogmatischen Hintergrund der Darlegungen des Simplikios erfassen will: Die Aneignung der ersten Stufe des neuplatonischen Tugendkanons, der politischen Tugenden, die erklärterweise das Ziel des Kommentars zum Handbüchlein des Epiktet ist, geht mit der Ausübung der Kultriten einher, wenn sie wohl auch im allgemeinen zur Zeit des Simplikios nur noch im privaten Rahmen stattfinden konnten. Es gibt keine Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß Simplikios eine im Vergleich zu Jamblich, Hierokles und Proklos abweichende Haltung gegenüber dem Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie eingenommen hätte, d.h. daß, bei aller Wichtigkeit und Unerlässlichkeit der Theurgie, auch für ihn die Philosophie mit ihrer rationalen Erfassung der metaphysischen Themen eine unabdingbare Voraussetzung bleibt. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0gw38rZ6TRENJZm

{"_index":"sire","_id":"674","_score":null,"_source":{"id":674,"authors_free":[{"id":990,"entry_id":674,"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":991,"entry_id":674,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":163,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kobusch, Theo","free_first_name":"Theo","free_last_name":"Kobusch","norm_person":{"id":163,"first_name":"Theo","last_name":"Kobusch","full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115417486","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":992,"entry_id":674,"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":"Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie","main_title":{"title":"Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie"},"abstract":"Der Epiktetkommentar ist dazu bestimmt, dem Leser die sittlichen Grundhaltungen zu vermitteln, ohne die es f\u00fcr ihn nicht f\u00f6r\u00adderlich ist, ein Studium der Philosophie zu beginnen. Da es sich somit um eine allgemein gehaltene Einf\u00fch\u00adrung handelt, die den Erwerb der b\u00fcrgerlichen Tugenden mit Hilfe der neuplato\u00adnischen Kommentierung des Handb\u00fcchleins des Epiktet zum Ziel hat wird im Verfolg des zu kommentierenden Textes eine breite Palette von philosophischen Fragen kurz angesprochen, ohne in die Tiefen des philosophischen Systems vorzudringen. Es ist daher unerl\u00e4sslich, bei der Interpretierung des Epiktetkommentars \u00fcber die traditionellen neuplatonischen Lehren informiert zu sein, wenn man den dogmatischen Hintergrund der Darlegungen des Simplikios erfassen will: Die Aneignung der ersten Stufe des neuplatoni\u00adschen Tugendkanons, der politischen Tugenden, die erkl\u00e4rterweise das Ziel des Kommentars zum Handb\u00fcchlein des Epiktet ist, geht mit der Aus\u00fcbung der Kultriten einher, wenn sie wohl auch im allgemeinen zur Zeit des Simplikios nur noch im privaten Rahmen stattfinden konnten. Es gibt keine Anhaltspunkte daf\u00fcr, da\u00df Simplikios eine im Vergleich zu Jamblich, Hierokles und Proklos abweichende Haltung gegen\u00fcber dem Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philo\u00adsophie zu Religion und Theurgie eingenommen h\u00e4tte, d.h. da\u00df, bei aller Wich\u00adtigkeit und Unerl\u00e4sslichkeit der Theurgie, auch f\u00fcr ihn die Philosophie mit ihrer rationalen Erfassung der metaphysischen Themen eine unabdingbare Vorausset\u00adzung bleibt. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0gw38rZ6TRENJZm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":163,"full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":674,"section_of":265,"pages":"323-342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sp\u00e4tantiken Denkens \/ Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. M\u00e4rz 2001 in W\u00fcrzburg","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kobusch\/Erler2002b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"\r\nDie Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde enthalten Monographien, Sammelb\u00e4nde, Editionen, \u00dcbersetzungen und Kommentare zu Themen aus den Bereichen Klassische, Mittel- und Neulateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte, Arch\u00e4ologie, Antike Philosophie sowie Nachwirken der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Dadurch leistet die Reihe einen umfassenden Beitrag zur Erschlie\u00dfung klassischer Literatur und zur Forschung im gesamten Gebiet der Altertumswissenschaften. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lv1Opvh3eZrvkIS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":265,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen - Leipzig","publisher":"Saur","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study, 2002
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume	55
Issue	2
Pages	159–199
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BFVk6vhtz2ul08p

{"_index":"sire","_id":"692","_score":null,"_source":{"id":692,"authors_free":[{"id":1030,"entry_id":692,"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":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study"},"abstract":"This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BFVk6vhtz2ul08p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":692,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"55","issue":"2","pages":"159\u2013199"}},"sort":[2002]}

Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile, 2002
By: Kukkonen, Taneli

Title	Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Vivarium
Volume	40
Issue	2
Pages	137-173
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Kukkonen, Taneli
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's rationale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments "through the impossible"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers offered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. We shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of Aristotle's intentions slowly emerged. Whether this picture accurately represents Aristotle is arguable. Because the cited examples arose in connection with some of Aristotle's universally held natural principles, the discussion was seen to tie in with cosmological issues of central importance. The various solutions put forward therefore serve to reveal what the discussants took to be the limits to the world's conceptualization. It is not quite a case of assessing "possible worlds"; this systematic notion only enters the discussion in the early 14th century. Rather, what is at stake is what the possible features of the one and only world are. [p. 141]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j1e9HSV2wsOobQn

{"_index":"sire","_id":"734","_score":null,"_source":{"id":734,"authors_free":[{"id":1097,"entry_id":734,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":224,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","free_first_name":"Taneli","free_last_name":"Kukkonen","norm_person":{"id":224,"first_name":"Taneli","last_name":"Kukkonen","full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1064756859","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile","main_title":{"title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile"},"abstract":"When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's rationale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments \"through the impossible\"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers offered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. We shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of Aristotle's intentions slowly emerged. Whether this picture accurately represents Aristotle is arguable. Because the cited examples arose in connection with some of Aristotle's universally held natural principles, the discussion was seen to tie in with cosmological issues of central importance. The various solutions put forward therefore serve to reveal what the discussants took to be the limits to the world's conceptualization. It is not quite a case of assessing \"possible worlds\"; this systematic notion only enters the discussion in the early 14th century. Rather, what is at stake is what the possible features of the one and only world are. [p. 141]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j1e9HSV2wsOobQn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":224,"full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":734,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"137-173"}},"sort":[2002]}

Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, Tome I, 2002
By: Sheppard, Anne D.

Title	Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, Tome I
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2002
Journal	The Classical Review, New Series
Volume	52
Issue	2
Pages	377-378
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sheppard, Anne D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In 1996, Ilsetraut Hadot published the first-ever full critical edition of the Greek text of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion (I. Hadot, Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epictète [Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996]). The volume reviewed here is the first half of an editio minor of that text. It also contains a largely new introduction, written for a more general audience than the detailed scholarly introduction of the editio maior, and a translation equipped with notes. These notes follow the format of recent Budé editions of Neoplatonic texts, offering much helpful explanation with useful references to parallel passages in other Neoplatonic authors but inconveniently divided between the bottom of the page and the end of the volume. All Neoplatonic commentaries are discursive, and those of Simplicius are among the most discursive. It takes 130 pages of this volume for Simplicius to reach Chapter 20 of Epictetus' short work. However, as with many Neoplatonic commentaries, the interest of this one does not lie in what it tells us about Epictetus—whose philosophy Simplicius misunderstood in some important respects, as Hadot points out in her introduction (pp. ci–cxvii). Rather, it is worth reading for what it tells us about Simplicius' own philosophical views. It is unusual among Neoplatonic commentaries in dealing with an ethical text, and the discussions of τὰ Ἐφ' ἡμῖν (what is within our power) and the spiritual exercises recommended by Epictetus are of considerable interest. Hadot's introduction offers an updated version of her views on Simplicius' life, work, and philosophical system; a chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching; an account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines; and a short history of the text. Finally, there is an appendix on Fate, Providence, and human freedom in Neoplatonism, which covers Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, as well as Simplicius. Of these, the account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines and the appendix are entirely new, while the chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching is an updated and lightly revised version of a chapter from her book, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin. Hiéroclès et Simplicius (Paris, 1978). The first two chapters of the introduction repeat, in a clear and accessible form, views she has already published elsewhere and is well known for. She reiterates her now largely accepted demonstration that Simplicius' philosophical system is essentially the same as that of Damascius—not, as Praechter thought, a simplified Alexandrian system—and, more controversially, continues to maintain, with Tardieu, that his commentaries were written in Harran after 532. The chapter on the history of the text abbreviates the longer account in the editio maior and explains the principles of the editio minor, acknowledging the help of Concetta Luna in simplifying the apparatus. A small number of readings that differ from those of the editio maior are indicated in a footnote on p. cxxvi. Hadot's translation is divided into sections with helpful headings and subheadings, and, together with her full notes, provides a great deal of assistance in understanding Simplicius' text. This volume deserves a warm welcome as a further installment in the enormous contribution Hadot has made to the understanding of Simplicius over many years. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before the second volume appears to complement it. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lwxAqvhdfMDm8ss

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1020","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1020,"authors_free":[{"id":1536,"entry_id":1020,"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}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Tome I","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Tome I"},"abstract":"In 1996, Ilsetraut Hadot published the first-ever full critical edition of the Greek text of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion (I. Hadot, Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te [Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996]). The volume reviewed here is the first half of an editio minor of that text. It also contains a largely new introduction, written for a more general audience than the detailed scholarly introduction of the editio maior, and a translation equipped with notes. These notes follow the format of recent Bud\u00e9 editions of Neoplatonic texts, offering much helpful explanation with useful references to parallel passages in other Neoplatonic authors but inconveniently divided between the bottom of the page and the end of the volume.\r\n\r\nAll Neoplatonic commentaries are discursive, and those of Simplicius are among the most discursive. It takes 130 pages of this volume for Simplicius to reach Chapter 20 of Epictetus' short work. However, as with many Neoplatonic commentaries, the interest of this one does not lie in what it tells us about Epictetus\u2014whose philosophy Simplicius misunderstood in some important respects, as Hadot points out in her introduction (pp. ci\u2013cxvii). Rather, it is worth reading for what it tells us about Simplicius' own philosophical views. It is unusual among Neoplatonic commentaries in dealing with an ethical text, and the discussions of \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f18\u03c6' \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (what is within our power) and the spiritual exercises recommended by Epictetus are of considerable interest.\r\n\r\nHadot's introduction offers an updated version of her views on Simplicius' life, work, and philosophical system; a chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching; an account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines; and a short history of the text. Finally, there is an appendix on Fate, Providence, and human freedom in Neoplatonism, which covers Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, as well as Simplicius. Of these, the account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines and the appendix are entirely new, while the chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching is an updated and lightly revised version of a chapter from her book, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin. Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius (Paris, 1978).\r\n\r\nThe first two chapters of the introduction repeat, in a clear and accessible form, views she has already published elsewhere and is well known for. She reiterates her now largely accepted demonstration that Simplicius' philosophical system is essentially the same as that of Damascius\u2014not, as Praechter thought, a simplified Alexandrian system\u2014and, more controversially, continues to maintain, with Tardieu, that his commentaries were written in Harran after 532. The chapter on the history of the text abbreviates the longer account in the editio maior and explains the principles of the editio minor, acknowledging the help of Concetta Luna in simplifying the apparatus. A small number of readings that differ from those of the editio maior are indicated in a footnote on p. cxxvi.\r\n\r\nHadot's translation is divided into sections with helpful headings and subheadings, and, together with her full notes, provides a great deal of assistance in understanding Simplicius' text. This volume deserves a warm welcome as a further installment in the enormous contribution Hadot has made to the understanding of Simplicius over many years. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before the second volume appears to complement it. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lwxAqvhdfMDm8ss","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1020,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"52","issue":"2","pages":"377-378"}},"sort":[2002]}

Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time, 2002
By: Sharples, Robert W., Bodnár, István M. (Ed.), Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.)

Title	Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Eudemus of Rhodes
Pages	107-126
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)	Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W.
Translator(s)

The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition. What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1024","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1024,"authors_free":[{"id":1543,"entry_id":1024,"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":1544,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1545,"entry_id":1024,"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}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"},"abstract":"The picture of Eudemus\u2019 Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle\u2019s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.\r\n\r\nWhat I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus\u2019 methods and contributions\u2014while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1024,"section_of":287,"pages":"107-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Leucippus, Democritus and the οὐ μᾶλλον Principle: An Examination of Theophrastus Phys.Op. Fr. 8, 2002
By: Schofield, Malcom

Title	Leucippus, Democritus and the οὐ μᾶλλον Principle: An Examination of Theophrastus Phys.Op. Fr. 8
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	47
Issue	3
Pages	253–263
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper is a piece of detective work. Starting from an obvious excrescence inthe transmitted text of Simplicius's treatment of the foundations of Presocraticatomism near the beginning of his Physicscommentary, it excavates a Theophrasteancorrection to Aristotle's tendency to lump Leucippus and Democritus together: Theophrastus made application of the οὐ μᾶλλον principle in the sphere of ontol-ogy an innovation by Democritus. Along the way it shows Simplicius reorderinghis Theophrastean source in his efforts to nd material which will strengthen thecontrast between Leucippus's atomism and Eleatic metaphysics. And it arguesthat in doing so he all but obliterates TheophrastusÕs attempt to point up theDemocritean credentials of the οὐ μᾶλλον principle. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Zo6uxvsH3eJYKMj

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1035","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1035,"authors_free":[{"id":1566,"entry_id":1035,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schofield, Malcom","free_first_name":"Malcom","free_last_name":"Schofield","norm_person":{"id":285,"first_name":"Malcolm","last_name":"Schofield","full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132323737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Leucippus, Democritus and the \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd Principle: An Examination of Theophrastus Phys.Op. Fr. 8","main_title":{"title":"Leucippus, Democritus and the \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd Principle: An Examination of Theophrastus Phys.Op. Fr. 8"},"abstract":"This paper is a piece of detective work. Starting from an obvious excrescence inthe transmitted text of Simplicius's treatment of the foundations of Presocraticatomism near the beginning of his Physicscommentary, it excavates a Theophrasteancorrection to Aristotle's tendency to lump Leucippus and Democritus together: Theophrastus made application of the \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd principle in the sphere of ontol-ogy an innovation by Democritus. Along the way it shows Simplicius reorderinghis Theophrastean source in his efforts to nd material which will strengthen thecontrast between Leucippus's atomism and Eleatic metaphysics. And it arguesthat in doing so he all but obliterates Theophrastus\u00d5s attempt to point up theDemocritean credentials of the \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd principle. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Zo6uxvsH3eJYKMj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1035,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"47","issue":"3","pages":"253\u2013263"}},"sort":[2002]}

Much Ado About 'Nothing': μηδέν and τὸ μὴ ἐόν in Parmenides, 2002
By: Sanders, Katie R.

Title	Much Ado About 'Nothing': μηδέν and τὸ μὴ ἐόν in Parmenides
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Apeiron
Volume	35
Issue	2
Pages	87–104
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sanders, Katie R.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It is, to my knowledge, a universally accepted assumption among contemporary commentators that μηδέν, 'nothing,' and το μη ἔον, 'what-is-not,' function as synonyms in Parmenides' poem. In this paper, I focus primarily on the central role this supposed semantic equivalence plays in arguments supporting an emendation in line 12 of fragment B8. Despite this scholarly unanimity regarding the synonymy of these two Greek terms and the popularity of the emendation, I contend that we can make the best sense of Parmenides' argument in this and the surrounding lines precisely by retaining the manuscript reading and recognizing the difference in meaning between 'nothing' and 'what-is-not.' This claim, of course, also has broader implications for the interpretation of Parmenides' poem generally. [introduction p. 87-88]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TyAsS6APM6xvpAp

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1050","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1050,"authors_free":[{"id":1595,"entry_id":1050,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":309,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sanders, Katie R.","free_first_name":"Katie R.","free_last_name":"Sanders","norm_person":{"id":309,"first_name":"Katie R.","last_name":"Sanders","full_name":"Sanders, Katie R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Much Ado About 'Nothing': \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd and \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd in Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Much Ado About 'Nothing': \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd and \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd in Parmenides"},"abstract":"It is, to my knowledge, a universally accepted assumption among contemporary commentators that \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd, 'nothing,' and \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b7 \u1f14\u03bf\u03bd, 'what-is-not,' function as synonyms in Parmenides' poem. In this paper, I focus primarily on the central role this supposed semantic equivalence plays in arguments supporting an emendation in line 12 of fragment B8. Despite this scholarly unanimity regarding the synonymy of these two Greek terms and the popularity of the emendation, I contend that we can make the best sense of Parmenides' argument in this and the surrounding lines precisely by retaining the manuscript reading and recognizing the difference in meaning between 'nothing' and 'what-is-not.' This claim, of course, also has broader implications for the interpretation of Parmenides' poem generally. [introduction p. 87-88]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TyAsS6APM6xvpAp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":309,"full_name":"Sanders, Katie R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1050,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Apeiron","volume":"35","issue":"2","pages":"87\u2013104"}},"sort":[2002]}

La fin du Néoplatonisme Hellénique. Mise au point sur la question, 2002
By: Saihi, Sofian

Title	La fin du Néoplatonisme Hellénique. Mise au point sur la question
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2002
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	20
Issue	2
Pages	83-110
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Saihi, Sofian
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

À ce stade de notre exposé, il est temps de dresser un bilan récapitulatif des travaux de M. Tardieu. Pour ce dernier, après avoir quitté Athènes, nos philosophes néoplatoniciens se sont rendus à Harrân. Cette cité nous est plus familière sous sa dénomination latine : Carrhae. Il s'agit d'une ville romaine de langue gréco-syriaque, toute proche de la frontière perse, à trente kilomètres au sud-est d'Édesse. Si nous avons dit qu'elle nous est familière, en voici la raison : en 53 avant notre ère, Crassus, membre du premier triumvirat avec Pompée et César, dirige une expédition en Perse. Richissime mais sans gloire militaire, il part à la recherche d'un exploit contre les Parthes. Or, ces derniers le mettent en déroute à Carrhae, où il se fait assassiner. C'est dans cette même ville que, quatre siècles plus tard, l'empereur Julien a effectué ses dernières dévotions avant de tomber sous les coups de Sâbuhr II. D'après M. Tardieu, donc, c'est également là que Simplicius, son maître Damascius, et les autres auraient définitivement élu domicile. Accueillis au sein, ou à l'origine eux-mêmes, d'une école néoplatonicienne, ils auraient continué à vivre, travailler et enseigner ensemble à Harrân. Ils auraient été, en somme, chez eux parmi des populations encore attachées au paganisme. Ils s'y seraient sentis bien et auraient décidé d'y rester. Au vu de ses propres déductions, Ilsetraut Hadot n'a pu rester indifférente aux résultats des travaux de Michel Tardieu. Elle le suit et le soutient ardemment. Et des chercheurs comme Pierre Chuvin, Lambros Couloubaritsis ou Alain de Libéra se sont rangés de leur côté. Par ailleurs, peu de critiques sont venues réfuter ses travaux. Certes, Luc Brisson, Paul Foulkes et, plus sérieusement, Simone Van Riet les ont mis en question. Mais Ilsetraut Hadot a su dissiper leurs doutes sans trop de difficulté. Par conséquent, bien que l'hypothèse de Michel Tardieu reste encore à asseoir plus solidement, si nous admettons avec lui que Damascius et ses compagnons ont emporté les pénates du néoplatonisme à Harrân, nous devrions retrouver les vestiges d'un tel foyer. Nous insinuons par là que si ces lieux ont bel et bien abrité une école néoplatonicienne, il doit nécessairement en subsister des traces tangibles. Une empreinte que nous pourrions peut-être relever dans la pensée philosophique musulmane et dont il faudrait établir les rapports avec la doctrine des Sâbiens. À cette fin, il semble primordial de se pencher sur la première philosophie en terre d'Islam. Par une telle élucidation, nous serions alors en mesure de dégager les structures profondes du néoplatonisme qui y subsistent et, pourquoi pas, déterminer par quelle voie oblique cette doctrine a bien pu cheminer entre l'Antiquité tardive et le Moyen Âge. [conclusion p. 108-110]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dUsC8Irj8dUfNHy

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1052","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1052,"authors_free":[{"id":1597,"entry_id":1052,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":307,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saihi, Sofian","free_first_name":"Sofian","free_last_name":"Saihi","norm_person":{"id":307,"first_name":"Sofian","last_name":"Saihi","full_name":"Saihi, Sofian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fin du N\u00e9oplatonisme Hell\u00e9nique. Mise au point sur la question","main_title":{"title":"La fin du N\u00e9oplatonisme Hell\u00e9nique. Mise au point sur la question"},"abstract":"\u00c0 ce stade de notre expos\u00e9, il est temps de dresser un bilan r\u00e9capitulatif des travaux de M. Tardieu. Pour ce dernier, apr\u00e8s avoir quitt\u00e9 Ath\u00e8nes, nos philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens se sont rendus \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n. Cette cit\u00e9 nous est plus famili\u00e8re sous sa d\u00e9nomination latine : Carrhae. Il s'agit d'une ville romaine de langue gr\u00e9co-syriaque, toute proche de la fronti\u00e8re perse, \u00e0 trente kilom\u00e8tres au sud-est d'\u00c9desse. Si nous avons dit qu'elle nous est famili\u00e8re, en voici la raison : en 53 avant notre \u00e8re, Crassus, membre du premier triumvirat avec Pomp\u00e9e et C\u00e9sar, dirige une exp\u00e9dition en Perse. Richissime mais sans gloire militaire, il part \u00e0 la recherche d'un exploit contre les Parthes. Or, ces derniers le mettent en d\u00e9route \u00e0 Carrhae, o\u00f9 il se fait assassiner. C'est dans cette m\u00eame ville que, quatre si\u00e8cles plus tard, l'empereur Julien a effectu\u00e9 ses derni\u00e8res d\u00e9votions avant de tomber sous les coups de S\u00e2buhr II.\r\n\r\nD'apr\u00e8s M. Tardieu, donc, c'est \u00e9galement l\u00e0 que Simplicius, son ma\u00eetre Damascius, et les autres auraient d\u00e9finitivement \u00e9lu domicile. Accueillis au sein, ou \u00e0 l'origine eux-m\u00eames, d'une \u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne, ils auraient continu\u00e9 \u00e0 vivre, travailler et enseigner ensemble \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n. Ils auraient \u00e9t\u00e9, en somme, chez eux parmi des populations encore attach\u00e9es au paganisme. Ils s'y seraient sentis bien et auraient d\u00e9cid\u00e9 d'y rester.\r\n\r\nAu vu de ses propres d\u00e9ductions, Ilsetraut Hadot n'a pu rester indiff\u00e9rente aux r\u00e9sultats des travaux de Michel Tardieu. Elle le suit et le soutient ardemment. Et des chercheurs comme Pierre Chuvin, Lambros Couloubaritsis ou Alain de Lib\u00e9ra se sont rang\u00e9s de leur c\u00f4t\u00e9. Par ailleurs, peu de critiques sont venues r\u00e9futer ses travaux. Certes, Luc Brisson, Paul Foulkes et, plus s\u00e9rieusement, Simone Van Riet les ont mis en question. Mais Ilsetraut Hadot a su dissiper leurs doutes sans trop de difficult\u00e9.\r\n\r\nPar cons\u00e9quent, bien que l'hypoth\u00e8se de Michel Tardieu reste encore \u00e0 asseoir plus solidement, si nous admettons avec lui que Damascius et ses compagnons ont emport\u00e9 les p\u00e9nates du n\u00e9oplatonisme \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n, nous devrions retrouver les vestiges d'un tel foyer. Nous insinuons par l\u00e0 que si ces lieux ont bel et bien abrit\u00e9 une \u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne, il doit n\u00e9cessairement en subsister des traces tangibles. Une empreinte que nous pourrions peut-\u00eatre relever dans la pens\u00e9e philosophique musulmane et dont il faudrait \u00e9tablir les rapports avec la doctrine des S\u00e2biens. \u00c0 cette fin, il semble primordial de se pencher sur la premi\u00e8re philosophie en terre d'Islam. Par une telle \u00e9lucidation, nous serions alors en mesure de d\u00e9gager les structures profondes du n\u00e9oplatonisme qui y subsistent et, pourquoi pas, d\u00e9terminer par quelle voie oblique cette doctrine a bien pu cheminer entre l'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive et le Moyen \u00c2ge. [conclusion p. 108-110]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dUsC8Irj8dUfNHy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":307,"full_name":"Saihi, Sofian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1052,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"20","issue":"2","pages":"83-110"}},"sort":[2002]}

Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory , 2002
By: Bowen, Alan C.

Title	Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Perspectives on Science
Volume	10
Issue	2
Pages	155–167
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro- duced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take pains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later writers in antiquity through a process of veriªcation. In this paper, I shall apply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius’ interpretation of Aristotle’s remarks in Meta . 8, which is the primary point of departure for the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I ªrst sketch several lines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius’ interpretation should not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena unknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then, after showing that there is a fairly well deªned range of readings of Aris- totle’s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in the 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle’s report about the Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius’ interpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of early Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nWG5h8vz9dCXgZc

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1073","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1073,"authors_free":[{"id":1627,"entry_id":1073,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","free_first_name":"Alan C. ","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory ","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory "},"abstract":"In earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro-\r\nduced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take\r\npains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later\r\nwriters in antiquity through a process of veri\u00aacation. In this paper, I shall\r\napply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nof Aristotle\u2019s remarks in Meta \u0001. 8, which is the primary point of departure\r\nfor the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I \u00aarst sketch several\r\nlines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nshould not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena\r\nunknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then,\r\nafter showing that there is a fairly well de\u00aaned range of readings of Aris-\r\ntotle\u2019s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in\r\nthe 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle\u2019s report about\r\nthe Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius\u2019\r\ninterpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of\r\nearly Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nWG5h8vz9dCXgZc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1073,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"155\u2013167"}},"sort":[2002]}

Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements, 2002
By: Bodnár, István M., Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Wöhrle, Georg (Ed.)

Title	Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier
Pages	75-90
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bodnár, István M.
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Wöhrle, Georg
Translator(s)

Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere—whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle’s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings—and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty. Accordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus’ assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki

{"_index":"sire","_id":"929","_score":null,"_source":{"id":929,"authors_free":[{"id":1373,"entry_id":929,"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}},{"id":1374,"entry_id":929,"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":1832,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"},"abstract":"Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere\u2014whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle\u2019s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings\u2014and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus\u2019 assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":929,"section_of":31,"pages":"75-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":31,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli, 2002
By: Bodnár, István M., Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Bodnár, István M. (Ed.)

Title	Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Eudemus of Rhodes
Pages	171-189
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bodnár, István M.
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M.
Translator(s)

After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus’ doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle’s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle’s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life. Here, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus’ retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus’ Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function. The only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration—which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time—the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover. Accordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, refers to Eudemus’ Physics far more often than to Theophrastus’ writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY

{"_index":"sire","_id":"943","_score":null,"_source":{"id":943,"authors_free":[{"id":1404,"entry_id":943,"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}},{"id":1405,"entry_id":943,"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":1406,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"},"abstract":"After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus\u2019 doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle\u2019s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life.\r\n\r\nHere, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus\u2019 retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus\u2019 Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function.\r\n\r\nThe only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration\u2014which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time\u2014the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, refers to Eudemus\u2019 Physics far more often than to Theophrastus\u2019 writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":943,"section_of":287,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Note sulla chiusura della Scuola neoplatonica di Atene, 2002
By: Napoli, Valerio

Title	Note sulla chiusura della Scuola neoplatonica di Atene
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2002
Journal	Schede Medievali
Volume	42
Pages	53-95
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Napoli, Valerio
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Secondo la lettura di Alain De Libera, l’“esilio” dei filosofi in Persia non segna la chiusura del conflitto tra l’ellenismo e il cristianesimo né la fine della filosofia («la filosofia è tutt'altro che morta a quest’epoca»), ma, al contrario, rappresenta l’evento che dà avvio a un movimento di trasferimento o di transfert della scienza – una traslazione degli studi o dei centri di studio – che durerà fino alla fine del Medioevo. L’esilio in questione, con cui la filosofia emigra – o pensa di emigrare – dall’Impero bizantino all’Impero sassanide per poi ritornare nell’Impero bizantino (in una translatio da Atene in Persia e dalla Persia a Harràn), costituisce una delle varie translations studiorum che si verificano tra l’antichità e il Medioevo e segna il perdurare, nella città di Harràn, in territorio bizantino, della filosofia pagana. In ogni caso, è possibile notare che, con i filosofi menzionati da Agazia (e forse con altri della stessa epoca non coinvolti nell’avventura persiana), ci troviamo di fronte all’ultima generazione di spicco dei filosofi pagani. Qualunque sia stata l’attività filosofica svolta dai neoplatonici dopo il loro ritorno dalla Persia, a Harràn o in qualche altra località, si può comunque constatare che Damascio (il quale probabilmente scrisse le sue opere prima del 529) e, se si vuole, qualche altro pensatore contemporaneo costituiscono gli ultimi filosofi pagani di rilievo. «[...] De fait – dichiara con decisione Henri Dominique Saffrey – après l’époque de Justinien, il n’y a plus eu de philosophes païens. Simplicius et les quelques-uns de la génération qui le suit, furent les derniers». Il pensiero pagano continuerà a vivere – al di là della possibile attività della comunità neoplatonica harraniana – in Oriente e in Occidente, in una complessa e intricata trama di ricezioni, influssi, fruizioni, letture, trasformazioni e suggestioni, nell’ambito del pensiero successivo nelle sue articolazioni arabo-islamica, greco-bizantina, latino-occidentale e altre. [conclusion p. 94-95]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UFh3Gu1utmqf1sN

{"_index":"sire","_id":"949","_score":null,"_source":{"id":949,"authors_free":[{"id":1425,"entry_id":949,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":522,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Napoli, Valerio","free_first_name":"Valerio","free_last_name":"Napoli","norm_person":{"id":522,"first_name":"Valerio","last_name":"Napoli","full_name":"Napoli, Valerio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Note sulla chiusura della Scuola neoplatonica di Atene","main_title":{"title":"Note sulla chiusura della Scuola neoplatonica di Atene"},"abstract":"Secondo la lettura di Alain De Libera, l\u2019\u201cesilio\u201d dei filosofi in Persia non segna la chiusura del conflitto tra l\u2019ellenismo e il cristianesimo n\u00e9 la fine della filosofia (\u00abla filosofia \u00e8 tutt'altro che morta a quest\u2019epoca\u00bb), ma, al contrario, rappresenta l\u2019evento che d\u00e0 avvio a un movimento di trasferimento o di transfert della scienza \u2013 una traslazione degli studi o dei centri di studio \u2013 che durer\u00e0 fino alla fine del Medioevo.\r\n\r\nL\u2019esilio in questione, con cui la filosofia emigra \u2013 o pensa di emigrare \u2013 dall\u2019Impero bizantino all\u2019Impero sassanide per poi ritornare nell\u2019Impero bizantino (in una translatio da Atene in Persia e dalla Persia a Harr\u00e0n), costituisce una delle varie translations studiorum che si verificano tra l\u2019antichit\u00e0 e il Medioevo e segna il perdurare, nella citt\u00e0 di Harr\u00e0n, in territorio bizantino, della filosofia pagana.\r\n\r\nIn ogni caso, \u00e8 possibile notare che, con i filosofi menzionati da Agazia (e forse con altri della stessa epoca non coinvolti nell\u2019avventura persiana), ci troviamo di fronte all\u2019ultima generazione di spicco dei filosofi pagani. Qualunque sia stata l\u2019attivit\u00e0 filosofica svolta dai neoplatonici dopo il loro ritorno dalla Persia, a Harr\u00e0n o in qualche altra localit\u00e0, si pu\u00f2 comunque constatare che Damascio (il quale probabilmente scrisse le sue opere prima del 529) e, se si vuole, qualche altro pensatore contemporaneo costituiscono gli ultimi filosofi pagani di rilievo.\r\n\r\n\u00ab[...] De fait \u2013 dichiara con decisione Henri Dominique Saffrey \u2013 apr\u00e8s l\u2019\u00e9poque de Justinien, il n\u2019y a plus eu de philosophes pa\u00efens. Simplicius et les quelques-uns de la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration qui le suit, furent les derniers\u00bb. Il pensiero pagano continuer\u00e0 a vivere \u2013 al di l\u00e0 della possibile attivit\u00e0 della comunit\u00e0 neoplatonica harraniana \u2013 in Oriente e in Occidente, in una complessa e intricata trama di ricezioni, influssi, fruizioni, letture, trasformazioni e suggestioni, nell\u2019ambito del pensiero successivo nelle sue articolazioni arabo-islamica, greco-bizantina, latino-occidentale e altre. [conclusion p. 94-95]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UFh3Gu1utmqf1sN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":522,"full_name":"Napoli, Valerio","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":949,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Schede Medievali","volume":"42","issue":"","pages":"53-95"}},"sort":[2002]}

What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element, 2002
By: Baltzly, Dirk

Title	What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Australasian Journal of Philosophy
Volume	80
Issue	3
Pages	261-287
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltzly, Dirk
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper, I consider Proclus’ arguments against Aristotle on the composition of the heavens from the fifth element, the aether. Proclus argues for the Platonic view (Timaeus 40a) that the heavenly bodies are composed of all four elements, with fire predominating. I think that his discussion exhibits all the methodological features that we find admirable in Aristotle’s largely a priori proto-science. Proclus’ treatment of the question in his commentary on Plato’s Timaeus also provides the fullest statement of a neoplatonic alternative to the Aristotelian theory of the elements. As such, it forms a significant part of a still largely underappreciated neoplatonic legacy to the history of science. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tOMemjPbvEoCytl

{"_index":"sire","_id":"962","_score":null,"_source":{"id":962,"authors_free":[{"id":1444,"entry_id":962,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element","main_title":{"title":"What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element"},"abstract":"In this paper, I consider Proclus\u2019 arguments against Aristotle on the composition of the \r\nheavens from the fifth element, the aether. Proclus argues for the Platonic view (Timaeus \r\n40a) that the heavenly bodies are composed of all four elements, with fire predominating. \r\nI think that his discussion exhibits all the methodological features that we find admirable \r\nin Aristotle\u2019s largely a priori proto-science. Proclus\u2019 treatment of the question in his \r\ncommentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus also provides the fullest statement of a neoplatonic \r\nalternative to the Aristotelian theory of the elements. As such, it forms a significant part of \r\na still largely underappreciated neoplatonic legacy to the history of science. [authors abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tOMemjPbvEoCytl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":962,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Australasian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"80","issue":"3","pages":"261-287"}},"sort":[2002]}

Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics, 2002
By: Baltussen, Han, Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Bodnár, István M. (Ed.)

Title	Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Eudemus of Rhodes
Pages	127-156
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M.
Translator(s)

In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (§§1-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus’ Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (§3). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130. On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted. Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material. Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22). The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits. These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk

{"_index":"sire","_id":"972","_score":null,"_source":{"id":972,"authors_free":[{"id":1465,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1466,"entry_id":972,"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":1467,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli\u2019s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (\u00a7\u00a71-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus\u2019 Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (\u00a73). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1\u20136) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus\u2019 notes alongside Aristotle\u2019s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius\u2019 method of demarcating or \"bracketing\" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus\u2019 approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus\u2019 role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus\u2019 importance in clarifying a problem is noted.\r\n\r\nObviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7\u201312) yielded five recurrent \"quotations,\" or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus\u2019 words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prograph\u0113in, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle\u2019s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.\r\n\r\nFinally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a \"colleague\" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle\u2019s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus\u2019 clarifications of Aristotle\u2019s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: \"The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\" Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle\u2019s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus\u2019 clarity (note the frequency of saph\u0113s) as against Aristotle\u2019s\u2014supposedly intended\u2014obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1\u201322).\r\n\r\nThe unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli\u2019s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius\u2019 prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out \"redundant\" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.\r\n\r\nThese considerations show Wehrli\u2019s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nQEtetEDiyq3flk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":972,"section_of":287,"pages":"127-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations, 2002
By: Baltussen, Han, Foley, John Miles (Ed.), Worthington, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece
Pages	173-189
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian
Translator(s)

This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method of the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with some justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on the theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these terms refer to the ‘early’ stages of Greek culture when w'riting found its way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis cuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around 530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period is to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con scious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on previous attempts at exegesis. [p. 174]

Online Resources

Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg, 2002
By: Kobusch, Theo (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"974","_score":null,"_source":{"id":974,"authors_free":[{"id":1471,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1472,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":40,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Foley, John Miles","free_first_name":"John Miles","free_last_name":"Foley","norm_person":{"id":40,"first_name":"John Miles","last_name":"Foley","full_name":"Foley, John Miles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137343485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1473,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":41,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Worthington, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Worthington","norm_person":{"id":41,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Worthington","full_name":"Worthington, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136869742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations","main_title":{"title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"},"abstract":"This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method \r\nof the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with \r\nsome justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on \r\nthe theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these \r\nterms refer to the \u2018early\u2019 stages of Greek culture when w'riting found \r\nits way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis\u00ad\r\ncuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around \r\n530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period \r\nis to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con\u00ad\r\nscious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on \r\nprevious attempts at exegesis. [p. 174]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":40,"full_name":"Foley, John Miles","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":41,"full_name":"Worthington, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":974,"section_of":293,"pages":"173-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":293,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Foley\/Worthington2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":293,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Mnemosyne","volume":"Supplementum 230","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Title	Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2002
Publication Place	München - Leipzig
Publisher	Saur
Series	Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Volume	160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Kobusch, Theo , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)

Die Beiträge zur Altertumskunde enthalten Monographien, Sammelbände, Editionen, Übersetzungen und Kommentare zu Themen aus den Bereichen Klassische, Mittel- und Neulateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte, Archäologie, Antike Philosophie sowie Nachwirken der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Dadurch leistet die Reihe einen umfassenden Beitrag zur Erschließung klassischer Literatur und zur Forschung im gesamten Gebiet der Altertumswissenschaften. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lv1Opvh3eZrvkIS

{"_index":"sire","_id":"265","_score":null,"_source":{"id":265,"authors_free":[{"id":335,"entry_id":265,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":163,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kobusch, Theo","free_first_name":"Theo","free_last_name":"Kobusch","norm_person":{"id":163,"first_name":"Theo","last_name":"Kobusch","full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115417486","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1998,"entry_id":265,"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":"Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sp\u00e4tantiken Denkens \/ Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. M\u00e4rz 2001 in W\u00fcrzburg","main_title":{"title":"Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sp\u00e4tantiken Denkens \/ Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. M\u00e4rz 2001 in W\u00fcrzburg"},"abstract":"\r\nDie Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde enthalten Monographien, Sammelb\u00e4nde, Editionen, \u00dcbersetzungen und Kommentare zu Themen aus den Bereichen Klassische, Mittel- und Neulateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte, Arch\u00e4ologie, Antike Philosophie sowie Nachwirken der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Dadurch leistet die Reihe einen umfassenden Beitrag zur Erschlie\u00dfung klassischer Literatur und zur Forschung im gesamten Gebiet der Altertumswissenschaften. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lv1Opvh3eZrvkIS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":163,"full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":265,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen - Leipzig","publisher":"Saur","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung, 2002
By: Geerlings, Wilhelm (Ed.), Schulze, Christian (Ed.)

Title	Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston – Köln
Publisher	Brill
Series	Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi
Volume	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian
Translator(s)

This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996. Introductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR

{"_index":"sire","_id":"267","_score":null,"_source":{"id":267,"authors_free":[{"id":337,"entry_id":267,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1995,"entry_id":267,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulze, Christian ","free_first_name":"Christian ","free_last_name":"Schulze","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","main_title":{"title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung"},"abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Mélanges Gilbert Dagron, 2002
By: Déroche, Vincent (Ed.)

Title	Mélanges Gilbert Dagron
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2002
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance
Series	Travaux et mémoires / Collège de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance
Volume	14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Déroche, Vincent
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/srVCI6CLDNJR4nL

{"_index":"sire","_id":"280","_score":null,"_source":{"id":280,"authors_free":[{"id":350,"entry_id":280,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":504,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","free_first_name":"Vincent","free_last_name":"D\u00e9roche","norm_person":{"id":504,"first_name":"Vincent","last_name":"D\u00e9roche","full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033332305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"M\u00e9langes Gilbert Dagron","main_title":{"title":"M\u00e9langes Gilbert Dagron"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/srVCI6CLDNJR4nL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":504,"full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":280,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","series":"Travaux et m\u00e9moires \/ Coll\u00e8ge de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Eudemus of Rhodes, 2002
By: Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Bodnár, István M. (Ed.)

Title	Eudemus of Rhodes
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	New Jersey
Publisher	Transaction Publisher
Series	Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume	11
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M.
Translator(s)

Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential "is," and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, "Eudemus and the Peripatos"; Tiziano Dorandi, "Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi"; William W. Fortenbaugh, "Eudemus' Work On Expression"; Pamela M. Huby, "Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?"; Robert Sharples, "Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time"; Han Baltussen, "Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics"; Sylvia Berryman, "Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts"; Istvbn Bodnbr, "Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, "Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus"; Stephen White, "Eudemus the Naturalist"; J orgen Mejer, "Eudemus and the History of Science"; Leonid Zhmud, "Eudemus' History of Mathematics"; Alan C. Bowen, "Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses"; Dmitri Panchenko, "Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light"; and Gbbor Betegh, "On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.""[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments." -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY

{"_index":"sire","_id":"287","_score":null,"_source":{"id":287,"authors_free":[{"id":356,"entry_id":287,"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":1833,"entry_id":287,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Eudemus of Rhodes","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus of Rhodes"},"abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece, 2002
By: Foley, John Miles (Ed.), Worthington, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston – Köln
Publisher	Brill
Series	Mnemosyne
Volume	Supplementum 230
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian
Translator(s)

This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.

Online Resources

The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach, 2002
By: Gersh, Stephen (Ed.), Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. (Ed.)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"293","_score":null,"_source":{"id":293,"authors_free":[{"id":1849,"entry_id":293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":40,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Foley, John Miles","free_first_name":"John Miles","free_last_name":"Foley","norm_person":{"id":40,"first_name":"John Miles","last_name":"Foley","full_name":"Foley, John Miles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137343485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1850,"entry_id":293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":41,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Worthington, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Worthington","norm_person":{"id":41,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Worthington","full_name":"Worthington, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136869742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece","main_title":{"title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece"},"abstract":"This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":40,"full_name":"Foley, John Miles","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":41,"full_name":"Worthington, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":293,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Mnemosyne","volume":"Supplementum 230","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Title	The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2002
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gersh, Stephen , Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M.
Translator(s)

Das Handbuch beschreitet neue Wege in der Schilderung der komplexen Geschichte jener geistigen Strömungen, die gemeinhin unter der Bezeichnung 'platonisch' bzw. 'neuplatonisch' zusammengefaßt werden. Es behandelt in chronologischer Folge die bedeutendsten philosophischen Denkrichtungen innerhalb dieser Tradition. Die Beiträge untersuchen die wichtigsten platonischen Begriffe und ihre semantischen Implikationen, erläutern die mit ihnen verbundenen philosophischen und theologischen Ansprüche, legen die Quellen der Begriffe dar und stellen sie in den Kontext der auf sie rekurrierenden bzw. ihnen zuwiderlaufenden geistigen Traditionen. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Bild des intellektuellen Lebens im Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Das Werk enthält Beiträge in englischer und deutscher Sprache. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AyyoAnYvbV6wAyu

{"_index":"sire","_id":"327","_score":null,"_source":{"id":327,"authors_free":[{"id":418,"entry_id":327,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":450,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gersh, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Gersh","norm_person":{"id":450,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Gersh","full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172508460","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":419,"entry_id":327,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":451,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","free_first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","free_last_name":"Hoenen","norm_person":{"id":451,"first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","last_name":"Hoenen","full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172140307","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach","main_title":{"title":"The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach"},"abstract":"Das Handbuch beschreitet neue Wege in der Schilderung der komplexen Geschichte jener geistigen Str\u00f6mungen, die gemeinhin unter der Bezeichnung 'platonisch' bzw. 'neuplatonisch' zusammengefa\u00dft werden. Es behandelt in chronologischer Folge die bedeutendsten philosophischen Denkrichtungen innerhalb dieser Tradition. Die Beitr\u00e4ge untersuchen die wichtigsten platonischen Begriffe und ihre semantischen Implikationen, erl\u00e4utern die mit ihnen verbundenen philosophischen und theologischen Anspr\u00fcche, legen die Quellen der Begriffe dar und stellen sie in den Kontext der auf sie rekurrierenden bzw. ihnen zuwiderlaufenden geistigen Traditionen. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Bild des intellektuellen Lebens im Mittelalter und in der Fr\u00fchen Neuzeit. Das Werk enth\u00e4lt Beitr\u00e4ge in englischer und deutscher Sprache. [Author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AyyoAnYvbV6wAyu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":450,"full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":451,"full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":327,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century, 2002
By: Leijenhorst, Cees (Ed.), Lüthy, Christoph (Ed.), Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H. (Ed.)

Title	The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston – Köln
Publisher	Brill
Series	Medieval and early modern science
Volume	5
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.
Translator(s)

This book explores the dynamics of the commentary and textbook traditions in Aristotelian natural philosophy under the headings of doctrine, method, and scientific and social status. It enquires what the evolution of the Aristotelian commentary tradition can tell us about the character of natural philosophy as a pedagogical tool, as a scientific enterprise, and as a background to modern scientific thought. In a unique attempt to cut old-fashioned historiographic divisions, it brings together scholars of ancient, medieval, Renaissance and seventeenth-century philosophy. The book covers a remarkably broad range of topics: it starts with the first Greek commentators and ends with Leibniz. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OLB13j4YVPx0XVb

{"_index":"sire","_id":"370","_score":null,"_source":{"id":370,"authors_free":[{"id":1991,"entry_id":370,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1992,"entry_id":370,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1993,"entry_id":370,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","free_first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","main_title":{"title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century"},"abstract":"This book explores the dynamics of the commentary and textbook traditions in Aristotelian natural philosophy under the headings of doctrine, method, and scientific and social status. It enquires what the evolution of the Aristotelian commentary tradition can tell us about the character of natural philosophy as a pedagogical tool, as a scientific enterprise, and as a background to modern scientific thought. In a unique attempt to cut old-fashioned historiographic divisions, it brings together scholars of ancient, medieval, Renaissance and seventeenth-century philosophy. The book covers a remarkably broad range of topics: it starts with the first Greek commentators and ends with Leibniz. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OLB13j4YVPx0XVb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum, 2002
By: Schuol, Monika (Ed.), Hartmann, Udo (Ed.), Luther, Andreas (Ed.)

Title	Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2002
Publication Place	Stuttgart
Publisher	Franz Steiner Verlag
Series	Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben
Volume	3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Schuol, Monika , Hartmann, Udo , Luther, Andreas
Translator(s)

Aus dem Inhalt: J. Wiesehöfer: Plön, Innsbruck, Berlin … Der „Orientkreis“ oder das Wandern zwischen zwei Welten ― A. Demandt: Alexander im Islam ― E. Baltrusch: Zwischen Autonomie und Repression: Perspektiven und Grenzen einer Zusammenarbeit zwischen jüdischen Gemeinden und hellenistischem Staat ― A. Gebhardt: Numismatische Beiträge zur spätdomitianischen Ostpolitik – Vorbereitungen eines Partherkrieges? ― B. Gufler: Orientalische Wurzeln griechischer Gorgo-Darstellungen ― P. Haider: Glaubensvorstellungen in Heliopolis / Baalbek in neuer Sicht ― U. Hartmann: Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden ― U. Hartmann / A. Luther: Münzen des hatrenischen Herrn wrwd (Worod) ― I. Huber: Der Perser-Nomos des Timotheos – Zwischen Unterhaltungsliteratur und politischer Propaganda ― P. Huyse: Sprachkontakte und Entlehnungen zwischen dem Griechisch/Lateinischen und dem Mitteliranischen ― H. Klinkott: Die Funktion des Apadana am Beispiel der Gründungsurkunde von Susa ― A. Luther: Zwietracht am Fluß Tanais: Nachrichten über das Bosporanische Reich bei Horaz? ― U. Scharrer: Nomaden und Seßhafte in Tadmor im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ― M. Schuol: Zur Überlieferung homerischer Epen vor dem Hintergrund altanatolischer Traditionen ― S. Stark: Nomaden und Seßhafte in Mittel- und Zentralasien: Nomadische Adaptionsstrategien am Fallbeispiel der Alttürken. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rscXaDagl5S5H9Q

{"_index":"sire","_id":"380","_score":null,"_source":{"id":380,"authors_free":[{"id":496,"entry_id":380,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":171,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuol, Monika","free_first_name":"Monika","free_last_name":"Schuol","norm_person":{"id":171,"first_name":"Monika","last_name":"Schuol","full_name":"Schuol, Monika","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124269826","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2007,"entry_id":380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hartmann, Udo","free_first_name":"Udo","free_last_name":"Hartmann","norm_person":{"id":170,"first_name":"Udo","last_name":"Hartmann","full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133793001","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2008,"entry_id":380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":172,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luther, Andreas ","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Luther","norm_person":{"id":172,"first_name":"Luther","last_name":"Andreas","full_name":"Luther, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133295524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum","main_title":{"title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum"},"abstract":"Aus dem Inhalt: J. Wieseh\u00f6fer: Pl\u00f6n, Innsbruck, Berlin \u2026 Der \u201eOrientkreis\u201c oder das Wandern zwischen zwei Welten \u2015 A. Demandt: Alexander im Islam \u2015 E. Baltrusch: Zwischen Autonomie und Repression: Perspektiven und Grenzen einer Zusammenarbeit zwischen j\u00fcdischen Gemeinden und hellenistischem Staat \u2015 A. Gebhardt: Numismatische Beitr\u00e4ge zur sp\u00e4tdomitianischen Ostpolitik \u2013 Vorbereitungen eines Partherkrieges? \u2015 B. Gufler: Orientalische Wurzeln griechischer Gorgo-Darstellungen \u2015 P. Haider: Glaubensvorstellungen in Heliopolis \/ Baalbek in neuer Sicht \u2015 U. Hartmann: Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden \u2015 U. Hartmann \/ A. Luther: M\u00fcnzen des hatrenischen Herrn wrwd (Worod) \u2015 I. Huber: Der Perser-Nomos des Timotheos \u2013 Zwischen Unterhaltungsliteratur und politischer Propaganda \u2015 P. Huyse: Sprachkontakte und Entlehnungen zwischen dem Griechisch\/Lateinischen und dem Mitteliranischen \u2015 H. Klinkott: Die Funktion des Apadana am Beispiel der Gr\u00fcndungsurkunde von Susa \u2015 A. Luther: Zwietracht am Flu\u00df Tanais: Nachrichten \u00fcber das Bosporanische Reich bei Horaz? \u2015 U. Scharrer: Nomaden und Se\u00dfhafte in Tadmor im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. \u2015 M. Schuol: Zur \u00dcberlieferung homerischer Epen vor dem Hintergrund altanatolischer Traditionen \u2015 S. Stark: Nomaden und Se\u00dfhafte in Mittel- und Zentralasien: Nomadische Adaptionsstrategien am Fallbeispiel der Altt\u00fcrken. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rscXaDagl5S5H9Q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":171,"full_name":"Schuol, Monika","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":172,"full_name":"Luther, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":380,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Abū l-ʿAbbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von Rüdiger Arnzen, 2002
By: Arnzen, Rüdiger, Nairīzī, al-Faḍl Ibn-Ḥātim an-, Arnzen, Rüdiger (Ed.)

Title	Abū l-ʿAbbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von Rüdiger Arnzen
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2002
Publication Place	Köln – Essen
Publisher	Rüdiger Arnzen
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger , Nairīzī, al-Faḍl Ibn-Ḥātim an-
Editor(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IUWXMfOVCLrlpvs

{"_index":"sire","_id":"83","_score":null,"_source":{"id":83,"authors_free":[{"id":91,"entry_id":83,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2349,"entry_id":83,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":449,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b, al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","free_first_name":"al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","free_last_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b","norm_person":{"id":449,"first_name":"al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","last_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b","full_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b, al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"ttp:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/101243030","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2350,"entry_id":83,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ab\u016b l-\u02bfAbb\u0101s an-Nayr\u012bz\u012bs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","main_title":{"title":"Ab\u016b l-\u02bfAbb\u0101s an-Nayr\u012bz\u012bs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von R\u00fcdiger Arnzen"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IUWXMfOVCLrlpvs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":449,"full_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b, al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":83,"pubplace":"K\u00f6ln \u2013 Essen","publisher":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 3’, 2002
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 3’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Urmson, J. O.(Urmson, James O.) , Lautner, P.(Lautner, Peter) ,

Aristotle’s Physics Book 3 covers two subjects: the definition of change and the finitude of the universe. Change enters into the very definition of nature as an internal source of change. Change receives two definitions in chapters 1 and 2, as involving the actualisation of the potential or of the changeable. Alexander of Aphrodisias is reported as thinking that the second version is designed to show that Book 3, like Book 5, means to disqualify change in relations from being genuine change. Aristotle’s successor Theophrastus, we are told, and Simplicius himself, prefer to admit relational change. Chapter 3 introduces a general causal principle that the activity of the agent causing change is in the patient undergoing change, and that the causing and undergoing are to be counted as only one activity, however different in definition. Simplicius points out that this paves the way for Aristotle’s God who moves the heavens, while admitting no motion in himself. It is also the basis of Aristotle’s doctrine, central to Neoplatonism, that intellect is one with the objects it contemplates.In defending Aristotle’s claim that the universe is spatially finite, Simplicius has to meet Archytas’ question, “What happens at the edge?”. He replies that, given Aristotle’s definition of place, there is nothing, rather than an empty place, beyond the furthest stars, and one cannot stretch one’s hand into nothing, nor be prevented by nothing. But why is Aristotle’s beginningless universe not temporally infinite? Simplicius answers that the past years no longer exist, so one never has an infinite collection. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3NicGfYii3TzfK7

{"_index":"sire","_id":"92","_score":null,"_source":{"id":92,"authors_free":[{"id":106,"entry_id":92,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":435,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Urmson, J. O.","free_first_name":"J. O.","free_last_name":"Urmson","norm_person":{"id":435,"first_name":"James O.","last_name":"Urmson","full_name":"Urmson, James O.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12972954X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":107,"entry_id":92,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Lautner, P.","free_first_name":"P.","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2294,"entry_id":92,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius, Cilicius","free_first_name":"Cilicius","free_last_name":"Simplicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 3\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 3\u2019"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s Physics Book 3 covers two subjects: the definition of change and the finitude of the universe. Change enters into the very definition of nature as an internal source of change. Change receives two definitions in chapters 1 and 2, as involving the actualisation of the potential or of the changeable. Alexander of Aphrodisias is reported as thinking that the second version is designed to show that Book 3, like Book 5, means to disqualify change in relations from being genuine change. Aristotle\u2019s successor Theophrastus, we are told, and Simplicius himself, prefer to admit relational change. Chapter 3 introduces a general causal principle that the activity of the agent causing change is in the patient undergoing change, and that the causing and undergoing are to be counted as only one activity, however different in definition. Simplicius points out that this paves the way for Aristotle\u2019s God who moves the heavens, while admitting no motion in himself. It is also the basis of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine, central to Neoplatonism, that intellect is one with the objects it contemplates.In defending Aristotle\u2019s claim that the universe is spatially finite, Simplicius has to meet Archytas\u2019 question, \u201cWhat happens at the edge?\u201d. He replies that, given Aristotle\u2019s definition of place, there is nothing, rather than an empty place, beyond the furthest stars, and one cannot stretch one\u2019s hand into nothing, nor be prevented by nothing. But why is Aristotle\u2019s beginningless universe not temporally infinite? Simplicius answers that the past years no longer exist, so one never has an infinite collection. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3NicGfYii3TzfK7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":435,"full_name":"Urmson, James O.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":92,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

On Aristotle's Categories 7-8, 2002
By: Simplicius

Title	On Aristotle's Categories 7-8
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Fleet, Barrie(Fleet, Barrie) ,

In "Categories" chapters 7 and 8 Aristotle considers his third and fourth categories - those of Relative and Quality. Critics of Aristotle had suggested for each of the non-substance categories that they could really be reduced to relatives, so it is important how the category of Relative is defined. Arisotle offers two definitons, and the second, stricter, one is often cited by his defenders in order to rule out objections. The second definition of relative involves the idea of something changing its relationship through a change undergone by its correlate, not by itself. There were disagreements as to whether this was genuine change, and Plotinus discussed whether relatives exist only in the mind, without being real. The terms used by Aristotle for such relationships was 'being disposed relatively to something', a term later borrowed by the Stoics for their fourth category, and perhaps originating in Plato's Academy. In his discussion of Quality, Aristotle reports a debate on whether justice admits of degrees, or whether only the possession of justice does so. Simplicius reports the further development of this controversy in terms of whether justice admits a range or latitude (platos). This debate helped to inspire the medieval idea of latitude of forms, which goes back much further than is commonly recognised - at least to Plato and Aristotle. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hbMACJVeFK0x6wQ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"113","_score":null,"_source":{"id":113,"authors_free":[{"id":135,"entry_id":113,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2254,"entry_id":113,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Aristotle's Categories 7-8","main_title":{"title":"On Aristotle's Categories 7-8"},"abstract":"In \"Categories\" chapters 7 and 8 Aristotle considers his third and fourth categories - those of Relative and Quality. Critics of Aristotle had suggested for each of the non-substance categories that they could really be reduced to relatives, so it is important how the category of Relative is defined. Arisotle offers two definitons, and the second, stricter, one is often cited by his defenders in order to rule out objections. The second definition of relative involves the idea of something changing its relationship through a change undergone by its correlate, not by itself. There were disagreements as to whether this was genuine change, and Plotinus discussed whether relatives exist only in the mind, without being real. The terms used by Aristotle for such relationships was 'being disposed relatively to something', a term later borrowed by the Stoics for their fourth category, and perhaps originating in Plato's Academy. In his discussion of Quality, Aristotle reports a debate on whether justice admits of degrees, or whether only the possession of justice does so.\r\nSimplicius reports the further development of this controversy in terms of whether justice admits a range or latitude (platos). This debate helped to inspire the medieval idea of latitude of forms, which goes back much further than is commonly recognised - at least to Plato and Aristotle. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hbMACJVeFK0x6wQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":113,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 1–26, 2002
By: Brennan, Tad (Ed.), Brittain, Charles (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 1–26
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Brennan, Tad , Brittain, Charles
Translator(s)	Brennan, Tad(Brennan, Tad) , Brittain, Charles(Brittain, Charles) ,

[Simplicius'] moral interpretation of Epictetus is preserved in the library of nations, as a classic book, most excellently adapted to direct the will, to purify the heart, and to confirm the understanding, by a just confidence in the nature both of God and man.' Edward Gibbon 'This book, written by a "pagan" philosopher, makes the most Christian impression conceivable. The betrayal of all reality through morality is here present in its fullest splendour - pitiful psychology, the philosopher is reduced to a country parson. And Plato is to blame for all of it! He remains Europe's greatest misfortune!' Fredrich Nietzsche Of these two rival reactions the favourable one was most common. Epictetus' Handbook on ethics was used in Christian monasteries, and Simplicius' commentary on it was widely available up to the nineteenth century. The commentary gives us a fascinating chance to see how a pagan Neoplatonist transformed Stoic ideas, adding Neoplatonist accounts of theology, theodicy, providence, free will and the problem of evil. This translation of the Commentary on the Handbook is published in two volumes. This is the first, covering chapters 1-26; the second covers chapters 27-53. [offical abstact]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mbLTAePveC0nKEm

Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 27–53, 2002
By: Brennan, Tad (Ed.), Brittain, Charles (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 27–53
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Brennan, Tad , Brittain, Charles
Translator(s)	Brennan, Tad(Brennan, Tad) , Brittain, Charles(Brittain, Charles) ,

The Enchiridion or Handbook of the first-century Ad Stoic Epictetus was used as an ethical treatise both in Christian monasteries and by the sixth-century pagan Neoplatonist Simplicius. Simplicius chose it for beginners, rather than Aristotle's Ethics, because it presupposed no knowledge of logic. We thus get a fascinating chance to see how a pagan Neoplatonist transformed Stoic ideas. The text was relevant to Simplicius because he too, like Epictetus, was teaching beginners how to take the first steps towards eradicating emotion, although he is unlike Epictetus in thinking that they should give up public life rather than acquiesce, if public office is denied them. Simplicius starts from a Platonic definition of the person as rational soul, not body, ignoring Epictetus' further whittling down of himself to just his will or policy decisions. He selects certain topics for special attention in chapters 1, 8, 27 and 31. Things are up to us, despite Fate. Our sufferings are not evil, but providential attempts to turn us from the body. Evil is found only in the human soul. But evil is parasitic (Proclus' term) on good. The gods exist, are provident, and cannot be bought off.With nearly all of this the Stoics would agree, but for quite different reasons, and their own distinctions and definitions are to a large extent ignored. This translation of the Handbook is published in two volumes. This is the second volume, covering chapters 27-53; the first covers chapters 1-26. [offical abstact]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2rHivWnOIN8JwX2

On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier, 2002
By: Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Wöhrle, Georg (Ed.)

Title	On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Stuttgart
Publisher	Franz Steiner Verlag
Series	Die Philosophie der Antike
Volume	14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Wöhrle, Georg
Translator(s)

The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6

{"_index":"sire","_id":"31","_score":null,"_source":{"id":31,"authors_free":[{"id":35,"entry_id":31,"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":36,"entry_id":31,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","main_title":{"title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier"},"abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary, 2002
By: Finamore, John F., Dillon, John, Iamblichus

Title	Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia antiqua
Volume	92
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Finamore, John F. , Dillon, John , Iamblichus
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Iamblichus (245-325), successor to Plotinus and Porphyry, brought a new religiosity to Neoplatonism. His theory of the soul is at the heart of his philosophical system. For Iamblichus, the human soul is so far inferior to the divine that its salvation depends not on philosophy alone (as it did for Plotinus) but on the aid of the gods and other divinities. This edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' major work on the soul, De Anima, is accompanied by the first English translation of the work and a commentary which explains the philosophical background and Iamblichus' doctrine of the soul. Included as well are excerpts from the Pseudo-Simplicius and Priscianus (also translated with commentary) that shed further light on Iamblichus' treatise. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/io7BO9pzLrSoTGE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"43","_score":null,"_source":{"id":43,"authors_free":[{"id":50,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":51,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2518,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":528,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Iamblichus","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":528,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"Iamblichus, Chalcidensis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118555154","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (245-325), successor to Plotinus and Porphyry, brought a new religiosity to Neoplatonism. His theory of the soul is at the heart of his philosophical system. For Iamblichus, the human soul is so far inferior to the divine that its salvation depends not on philosophy alone (as it did for Plotinus) but on the aid of the gods and other divinities.\r\nThis edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' major work on the soul, De Anima, is accompanied by the first English translation of the work and a commentary which explains the philosophical background and Iamblichus' doctrine of the soul. Included as well are excerpts from the Pseudo-Simplicius and Priscianus (also translated with commentary) that shed further light on Iamblichus' treatise. [authors abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/io7BO9pzLrSoTGE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":528,"full_name":"Iamblichus, Chalcidensis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":43,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"92","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism, 2002
By: D'Ancona Costa, Cristina, Geerlings, Wilhelm (Ed.), Schulze, Christian (Ed.)

Title	Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung
Pages	201-251
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Editor(s)	Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian
Translator(s)

The paper explores the structural aspects of the Arabic-Latin reception of Aristotle's works, particularly the approach or approaches taken by Arab philosophers in transmitting Aristotelian texts to the Latin Middle Ages. The author argues that the analysis of the doctrinal contents of the Arabic Aristotle is complex and instead focuses on the movement of rise and development of the medieval genre of philosophical commentary, particularly the line by line commentary typical of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The paper discusses the history and institutional context of the medieval philosophical commentary, including the influence of scriptural exegesis, literary and rhetorical traditions, and juridical and medical literature. The paper concludes that Neoplatonism was of paramount importance in the transmission of the Aristotelian corpus both to the Arabic and Latin Middle Ages. The paper also includes a synopsis of the Greek commentaries to Aristotle's works and their mentions in the Arab bio-bibliographical sources. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h8mLq4r5ceUYN0j

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1286","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1286,"authors_free":[{"id":1875,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2339,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2340,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulze, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Schulze","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"The paper explores the structural aspects of the Arabic-Latin reception of Aristotle's works, particularly the approach or approaches taken by Arab philosophers in transmitting Aristotelian texts to the Latin Middle Ages. The author argues that the analysis of the doctrinal contents of the Arabic Aristotle is complex and instead focuses on the movement of rise and development of the medieval genre of philosophical commentary, particularly the line by line commentary typical of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The paper discusses the history and institutional context of the medieval philosophical commentary, including the influence of scriptural exegesis, literary and rhetorical traditions, and juridical and medical literature. The paper concludes that Neoplatonism was of paramount importance in the transmission of the Aristotelian corpus both to the Arabic and Latin Middle Ages. The paper also includes a synopsis of the Greek commentaries to Aristotle's works and their mentions in the Arab bio-bibliographical sources. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h8mLq4r5ceUYN0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1286,"section_of":267,"pages":"201-251","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":267,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Geerlings2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran, 2002
By: Walker, Joel Thomas

Title	The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Ancient World
Volume	33
Issue	1
Pages	45–69
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Walker, Joel Thomas
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

As a series of recent retrospectives makes clear, the study of late antiquity has witnessed dramatic growth during the past twenty years, with increasing signs of formal recognition during the 1990s. This rapid expansion has been accompanied by an implicit debate over the most useful chronological and geographical boundaries for the emergent field. Although the "world of late antiquity" ostensibly includes the whole of the Sasanian and early Islamic Near East, the current shape of the field, as defined especially by conferences and publications, remains heavily weighted towards the Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire and its successor states in western Europe. Many recent discussions of the "late antique world" are, in fact, studies of late Roman history that make little attempt to incorporate regions east of the Euphrates. Integrating the Sasanian Empire into the study of late antiquity will be a difficult task. A variety of obstacles, outlined in section II above, beset the study of Sasanian history, and substantial linguistic barriers limit access to the Sasanian world for scholars trained in the Greco-Roman sources. Modern political geography has also proved to be a major barrier for historians and archaeologists interested in regions "east of Byzantium." In the current gap between Sasanian and late Roman history, however, lies also much potential for future research. To develop a more interdisciplinary vision of late antiquity, scholars will need to explore more closely the connections and contrasts between the worlds of Byzantium and Sasanian Iran. Some progress in this direction has been made in the fields of military, diplomatic, and economic history; far more work needs to be done in the areas of cultural and intellectual history, not least the history of philosophy. The recent collapse of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s has reminded us how quickly changes in contemporary geography can lead to comparable shifts in the conceptualization of historical geography. The world of late antiquity may also look very different, if and when more scholars have greater access to travel, teach, and again conduct archaeological fieldwork in Iraq, Iran, and neighboring countries. The emergence of the field of late antiquity represents a major opportunity for Sasanian history, precisely because it invites us to look across the traditional disciplinary division between Mediterranean and Near Eastern history. Modern interpretations of the philosophers’ journey to the court of Khosrow Anoshirvan in 531/532 C.E. reveal how often this disciplinary division has obscured the richness of intellectual life at the late Sasanian court, as well as the intensity of its contacts with Greek and Syrian intellectuals. From Gibbon through Bury and down to Alan Cameron’s influential article on the "Closing of the Academy," there has been a strong tendency among Greco-Roman historians to give too much credence to Agathias’ hostile depiction of Sasanian philhellenism. Near Eastern historians, such as Rawlinson and Christensen, and the occasional Byzantinist such as Jean-François Duneau, have offered more optimistic readings of Khosrow’s philosophical patronage, but without sufficient attention to the tensions involved in the Sasanian encounter with Hellenism. The task that lies ahead, building on the work of Michel Tardieu, is to explain the precise quality of Sasanian Hellenism, its social and political context, cultural milieu, and intellectual legacy. The career of Uranius, and the modern debate over the peregrinations of Damascius, prove that this investigation must include not only Athens, Alexandria, and Constantinople, but also Ctesiphon, Harran, and Gondishapur. Khosrow’s patronage of Greek philosophers thus reveals the advantages, indeed the necessity, of a world of late antiquity that includes the whole of the Sasanian and early Islamic Near East. [conclusion p. 67-69]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVLAM9PVkGxCgRz

{"_index":"sire","_id":"446","_score":null,"_source":{"id":446,"authors_free":[{"id":598,"entry_id":446,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":355,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","free_first_name":"Joel Thomas","free_last_name":"Walker","norm_person":{"id":355,"first_name":"Joel Thomas","last_name":"Walker","full_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131718118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran","main_title":{"title":"The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran"},"abstract":"As a series of recent retrospectives makes clear, the study of late antiquity has witnessed dramatic growth during the past twenty years, with increasing signs of formal recognition during the 1990s. This rapid expansion has been accompanied by an implicit debate over the most useful chronological and geographical boundaries for the emergent field. Although the \"world of late antiquity\" ostensibly includes the whole of the Sasanian and early Islamic Near East, the current shape of the field, as defined especially by conferences and publications, remains heavily weighted towards the Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire and its successor states in western Europe. Many recent discussions of the \"late antique world\" are, in fact, studies of late Roman history that make little attempt to incorporate regions east of the Euphrates.\r\n\r\nIntegrating the Sasanian Empire into the study of late antiquity will be a difficult task. A variety of obstacles, outlined in section II above, beset the study of Sasanian history, and substantial linguistic barriers limit access to the Sasanian world for scholars trained in the Greco-Roman sources. Modern political geography has also proved to be a major barrier for historians and archaeologists interested in regions \"east of Byzantium.\" In the current gap between Sasanian and late Roman history, however, lies also much potential for future research. To develop a more interdisciplinary vision of late antiquity, scholars will need to explore more closely the connections and contrasts between the worlds of Byzantium and Sasanian Iran. Some progress in this direction has been made in the fields of military, diplomatic, and economic history; far more work needs to be done in the areas of cultural and intellectual history, not least the history of philosophy. The recent collapse of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s has reminded us how quickly changes in contemporary geography can lead to comparable shifts in the conceptualization of historical geography. The world of late antiquity may also look very different, if and when more scholars have greater access to travel, teach, and again conduct archaeological fieldwork in Iraq, Iran, and neighboring countries.\r\n\r\nThe emergence of the field of late antiquity represents a major opportunity for Sasanian history, precisely because it invites us to look across the traditional disciplinary division between Mediterranean and Near Eastern history. Modern interpretations of the philosophers\u2019 journey to the court of Khosrow Anoshirvan in 531\/532 C.E. reveal how often this disciplinary division has obscured the richness of intellectual life at the late Sasanian court, as well as the intensity of its contacts with Greek and Syrian intellectuals. From Gibbon through Bury and down to Alan Cameron\u2019s influential article on the \"Closing of the Academy,\" there has been a strong tendency among Greco-Roman historians to give too much credence to Agathias\u2019 hostile depiction of Sasanian philhellenism. Near Eastern historians, such as Rawlinson and Christensen, and the occasional Byzantinist such as Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Duneau, have offered more optimistic readings of Khosrow\u2019s philosophical patronage, but without sufficient attention to the tensions involved in the Sasanian encounter with Hellenism. The task that lies ahead, building on the work of Michel Tardieu, is to explain the precise quality of Sasanian Hellenism, its social and political context, cultural milieu, and intellectual legacy. The career of Uranius, and the modern debate over the peregrinations of Damascius, prove that this investigation must include not only Athens, Alexandria, and Constantinople, but also Ctesiphon, Harran, and Gondishapur. Khosrow\u2019s patronage of Greek philosophers thus reveals the advantages, indeed the necessity, of a world of late antiquity that includes the whole of the Sasanian and early Islamic Near East. [conclusion p. 67-69]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AVLAM9PVkGxCgRz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":355,"full_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":446,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient World","volume":"33","issue":"1","pages":"45\u201369"}},"sort":[2002]}

Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike, 2002
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Geerlings, Wilhelm (Ed.), Schulze, Christian (Ed.)

Title	Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2002
Published in	Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung
Pages	183-199
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian
Translator(s)

Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar wird für uns vom ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert an faßbar und verdankt seine Entstehung der wohlbekannten Tatsache, daß von diesem Zeitpunkt an in allen Philosophenschulen der Antike der Unterricht mehr und mehr die Form einer Erklärung der Texte ihrer Schulgründer Platon, Aristoteles, Epikur und Chrysipp annimmt. Vorher wird es wohl nur Erklärungen zu schwierigen Stellen gegeben haben. Von den Kommentaren zu den Werken des Chrysipp ist nichts erhalten, aber wir wissen z.B. von dem Stoiker Epiktet, daß er in seinem Unterricht Chrysipp kommentierte, wie die Platoniker und Peripatetiker Platon und Aristoteles. Es ist uns nur ein einziger fortlaufender Kommentar zu einem stoischen Text überliefert worden, der des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum 'Handbüchlein' des Epiktet, der aber natürlich nicht eine stoische, sondern eine neuplatonische Exegese des stoischen Textes liefert. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sbjj47InbPVG3Mz

{"_index":"sire","_id":"521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":521,"authors_free":[{"id":727,"entry_id":521,"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":1996,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1997,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulze, Christian","free_first_name":"Schulze","free_last_name":"Christian","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike","main_title":{"title":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike"},"abstract":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar wird f\u00fcr uns vom ers\u00adten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert an fa\u00dfbar und verdankt seine Ent\u00adstehung der wohlbekannten Tatsache, da\u00df von diesem Zeitpunkt an in allen Philosophenschulen der Antike der Unterricht mehr und mehr die Form einer Erkl\u00e4rung der Texte ihrer Schulgr\u00fcnder Pla\u00adton, Aristoteles, Epikur und Chrysipp annimmt. Vorher wird es wohl nur Erkl\u00e4rungen zu schwierigen Stellen gegeben haben. Von den Kommentaren zu den Werken des Chrysipp ist nichts erhalten, aber wir wissen z.B. von dem Stoiker Epiktet, da\u00df er in seinem Unterricht Chrysipp kommentierte, wie die Platoniker und Peripatetiker Platon und Aristoteles. Es ist uns nur ein einziger fortlaufender Kommen\u00adtar zu einem stoischen Text \u00fcberliefert worden, der des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum 'Handb\u00fcchlein' des Epiktet, der aber nat\u00fcrlich nicht eine stoische, sondern eine neuplatonische Exegese des stoi\u00adschen Textes liefert. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sbjj47InbPVG3Mz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":521,"section_of":267,"pages":"183-199","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":267,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Geerlings2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition, 2002
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Leijenhorst, Cees (Ed.), Lüthy, Christoph (Ed.), Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (Ed.)

Title	Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Pages	31-56
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)	Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H.
Translator(s)

In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC

Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on Simple Motions, Bodies and Magnitudes, 2002
By: Hankinson, Robert J.

Title	Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on Simple Motions, Bodies and Magnitudes
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume	46
Pages	19-42
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hankinson, Robert J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle accounted for the fundamental dynamics of the cosmos in terms of the tendencies of the various elements to distinct types of natural motions, and (in the case of the sublunary elements) to rest in their natural places. In so doing, he introduced a fifth element, the ether, with a natural and unceasing tendency to revolve, as the matter for the heavenly bodies. This paper deals with some of the objections raised to this model, and to its conceptual underpinnings, raised by Xenarchus of Seleuceia, an unorthodox Peripatetic of the 1 st century BC, and of the attempts of later philosophers to rebut them. In so doing it casts light on a little-known, but historically important and interesting, episode in the development of physical dynamics. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CTZqeCQH7oDhwXB

{"_index":"sire","_id":"576","_score":null,"_source":{"id":576,"authors_free":[{"id":818,"entry_id":576,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":168,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","free_first_name":"Robert J.","free_last_name":"Hankinson","norm_person":{"id":168,"first_name":"Robert J.","last_name":"Hankinson","full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","short_ident":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129477370","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on Simple Motions, Bodies and Magnitudes","main_title":{"title":"Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on Simple Motions, Bodies and Magnitudes"},"abstract":"Aristotle accounted for the fundamental dynamics of the cosmos in terms of the tendencies of the various elements to distinct types of natural motions, and (in the case of the sublunary elements) to rest in their natural places. In so doing, he introduced a fifth element, the ether, with a natural and unceasing tendency to revolve, as the matter for the heavenly bodies. This paper deals with some of the objections raised to this model, and to its conceptual underpinnings, raised by Xenarchus of Seleuceia, an unorthodox Peripatetic of the 1 st century BC, and of the attempts of later philosophers to rebut them. In so doing it casts light on a little-known, but historically important and interesting, episode in the development of physical dynamics. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CTZqeCQH7oDhwXB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":168,"full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":576,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46","issue":"","pages":"19-42"}},"sort":[2002]}

Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden, 2002
By: Hartmann, Udo, Schuol, Monika (Ed.), Hartmann, Udo (Ed.), Luther, Andreas (Ed.)

Title	Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2002
Published in	Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum
Pages	123-160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hartmann, Udo
Editor(s)	Schuol, Monika , Hartmann, Udo , Luther, Andreas
Translator(s)

Der Exkurs über Chosroes, Uranius und die Philosophengesandtschaft der athenischen Neuplatoniker im Jahr 532 gestattet einen Einblick in die kulturellen Kontakte zwischen Rom und Persien im 6. Jahrhundert. Er zeigt, daß es im Römischen Reich eine weitverbreitete Kenntnis über die Renaissance der Sasaniden unter Chosroes gab, auch wenn das Bild Persiens zum Teil idealisiert wurde. Die philosophische Bildung des Chosroes rühmten sowohl Perser als auch Römer. Der Exkurs demonstriert das breite Interesse an der anderen Kultur, das sich besonders bei den Heiden fand. Schließlich ver deutlicht er, daß sich Persien im 6. Jahrhundert zunehmend zum Fluchtpunkt für Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem Römischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5

Aquinas and the Platonists, 2002
By: Hankey, Wayne J., Gersh, Stephen (Ed.), Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. (Ed.)

Title	Aquinas and the Platonists
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach
Pages	279-324
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hankey, Wayne J.
Editor(s)	Gersh, Stephen , Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M.
Translator(s)

As with all thinkers who treat the philosophies on which they depend, Aquinas has two relations to his predecessors and, in particular, to the Platonic tradition. One is that of which he is conscious, sets out explicitly, is part of how he places himself within the history of philosophy, and is essential to his understanding of that place. The other is the unconscious dependence. In every thinker, these will diverge to some extent. First, no previous philosophy can answer later questions without being altered by the questioner: a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver. The alteration made by present need is especially marked in the schools deriving from the Hellenistic philosophies, with their dependence on the exegesis of authoritative texts constantly reread to supply answers required by the new needs of thought. Second, no one is capable of a complete grasp of what forms and moves their own thought. In the case of Thomas’ relation to Platonism, the divergences, inconsistencies, and even contradictions between what he says about Platonism, how he places himself in respect to it, and its real influence on his thought are very great. In fact, Thomas’ own system stands within a tradition whose foundation, as he represents it, he self-consciously opposes. Because his understanding of the Platonic tradition is deeply problematic in many ways, while his knowledge of it is extensive, and because the tradition is itself so complex, Aquinas is frequently (or, better, normally) criticizing one aspect of Platonism from the perspective of another. Such internal criticism is characteristic of Plato’s thought and of its tradition. The ancient Platonists were, however, far better informed about the history of the tradition in which they stood than were their Latin medieval successors. The Platonists of late antiquity, upon whom Thomas depends for much of his understanding of the history of philosophy, did not have the degree of naivete present in the self-opposition that characterizes Thomas’ relation to Platonism. Getting hold of Thomas’s self-conscious relation to Platonism has been largely accomplished, and many of the tools to complete the task are available. The lexicographical aspect of the work was substantially done almost fifty years ago by R.J. Henle. His Saint Thomas and Platonism: A Study of the Plato and Platonici Texts in the Writings of Saint Thomas is almost complete in terms of the texts it considers. Henle lavishly reproduces the relevant passages in Latin. For the most part, he gives the likely sources of the doctrines attributed to the Platonists with the accuracy possible when he wrote. His analysis, within the parameters he sets and which his perspective sets for him, is thorough and inescapable. Beyond Henle’s work, it is necessary to add the few texts he missed, to correct his work on the basis of better editions than the ones he had available (or used), and to compensate for the limits of his undertaking and his biases. The principal problems with Henle’s work, once we accept its limits, lie in the vestiges of the neo-Scholastic mentality he retains. This mentality is opposed to that of the historian and was antipathetic to Platonic idealism. On this account, like Aquinas himself, he misses the extent to which Thomas’ representation of Platonism and of his own relation to it actually stands within its long and diverse tradition. Henle’s work accurately describes how, for Aquinas, a philosophical school is a fixed way of thinking, which results in “a series of like statements formulated in the several minds that teach it and learn it, that write it and read it” (as Mark Jordan puts it). Despite accepting this definition of a “philosophical teaching” from Jordan, as well as his crucial point that Aquinas is not a philosopher whose position is an Aristotelianismus in an Enlightenment or neo-Scholastic manner, I shall continue to write herein both of “Platonism” and of Thomas’ Platonism. As a matter of fact, for Aquinas, what the Platonici teach has been reduced to a fixed way of thinking, which he treats ahistorically, although he knows much of its history. Further, at several crucial points, he self-consciously sides with them. In rescuing Aquinas from neo-Scholastic representations of his philosophy, Jordan is importantly right that Aquinas did not think of Christians as philosophers. He neglects, however, the continuities that do exist between Scholastic and neo-Scholastic treatments of philosophy. Henle, working within these, through his analysis of the texts in which Thomas speaks of Plato and the Platonici, shows how Platonism is presented as one of these viae. This via Thomas criticizes, and for most purposes finds the way of Aristotle superior, even if he may accept some of the positions at which the Platonists arrive—positions that also may be reached otherwise. For Thomas, Platonism has a fundamental point of departure, established in Plato’s attempt to save certain knowledge from the consequences of the doctrine of the ancient Physicists (Priores Naturales), with whom he accepts that philosophy began. For him, Plato’s flawed solution to the epistemological problem determines Platonic ontology. The Platonic philosophical position as a whole proceeds according to a distinct method of reasoning to arrive at positions. It is a series of syllogisms whose basic premises are deficient. In the thirteenth century, only the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Timaeus were available to the Latin West. Henle concluded that Aquinas had no direct knowledge of any of them. Thus, much as with Augustine, he knows only what he takes to be Plato’s doctrines and is without knowledge of the dialogues themselves. Thomas’ approach to philosophy gave him little sympathy for the kind of dialectic by which the fundamentals of philosophy are questioned and reconsidered within and between the dialogues. The substance of Thomas’ own thinking shows almost no development—except, significantly, in his coming to accept that knowledge involves the formation of a Plotinian-Augustinian inner word in the mind, the verbum mentis. There is certainly no development remotely comparable to that within Plato’s corpus. In consequence, his picture of Plato’s way of thinking is not only lacking in the most basic information but is also without the intellectual necessities for a sympathetic representation. [introduction p. 1-3]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LajmF4jRGYCVzFn

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1348","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1348,"authors_free":[{"id":2003,"entry_id":1348,"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}},{"id":2361,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":450,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gersh, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Gersh","norm_person":{"id":450,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Gersh","full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172508460","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2362,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":451,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","free_first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","free_last_name":"Hoenen","norm_person":{"id":451,"first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","last_name":"Hoenen","full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172140307","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and the Platonists","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and the Platonists"},"abstract":"As with all thinkers who treat the philosophies on which they depend, Aquinas has two relations to his predecessors and, in particular, to the Platonic tradition. One is that of which he is conscious, sets out explicitly, is part of how he places himself within the history of philosophy, and is essential to his understanding of that place. The other is the unconscious dependence. In every thinker, these will diverge to some extent. First, no previous philosophy can answer later questions without being altered by the questioner: a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver. The alteration made by present need is especially marked in the schools deriving from the Hellenistic philosophies, with their dependence on the exegesis of authoritative texts constantly reread to supply answers required by the new needs of thought. Second, no one is capable of a complete grasp of what forms and moves their own thought. In the case of Thomas\u2019 relation to Platonism, the divergences, inconsistencies, and even contradictions between what he says about Platonism, how he places himself in respect to it, and its real influence on his thought are very great.\r\n\r\nIn fact, Thomas\u2019 own system stands within a tradition whose foundation, as he represents it, he self-consciously opposes. Because his understanding of the Platonic tradition is deeply problematic in many ways, while his knowledge of it is extensive, and because the tradition is itself so complex, Aquinas is frequently (or, better, normally) criticizing one aspect of Platonism from the perspective of another. Such internal criticism is characteristic of Plato\u2019s thought and of its tradition. The ancient Platonists were, however, far better informed about the history of the tradition in which they stood than were their Latin medieval successors. The Platonists of late antiquity, upon whom Thomas depends for much of his understanding of the history of philosophy, did not have the degree of naivete present in the self-opposition that characterizes Thomas\u2019 relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nGetting hold of Thomas\u2019s self-conscious relation to Platonism has been largely accomplished, and many of the tools to complete the task are available. The lexicographical aspect of the work was substantially done almost fifty years ago by R.J. Henle. His Saint Thomas and Platonism: A Study of the Plato and Platonici Texts in the Writings of Saint Thomas is almost complete in terms of the texts it considers. Henle lavishly reproduces the relevant passages in Latin. For the most part, he gives the likely sources of the doctrines attributed to the Platonists with the accuracy possible when he wrote. His analysis, within the parameters he sets and which his perspective sets for him, is thorough and inescapable. Beyond Henle\u2019s work, it is necessary to add the few texts he missed, to correct his work on the basis of better editions than the ones he had available (or used), and to compensate for the limits of his undertaking and his biases.\r\n\r\nThe principal problems with Henle\u2019s work, once we accept its limits, lie in the vestiges of the neo-Scholastic mentality he retains. This mentality is opposed to that of the historian and was antipathetic to Platonic idealism. On this account, like Aquinas himself, he misses the extent to which Thomas\u2019 representation of Platonism and of his own relation to it actually stands within its long and diverse tradition.\r\n\r\nHenle\u2019s work accurately describes how, for Aquinas, a philosophical school is a fixed way of thinking, which results in \u201ca series of like statements formulated in the several minds that teach it and learn it, that write it and read it\u201d (as Mark Jordan puts it). Despite accepting this definition of a \u201cphilosophical teaching\u201d from Jordan, as well as his crucial point that Aquinas is not a philosopher whose position is an Aristotelianismus in an Enlightenment or neo-Scholastic manner, I shall continue to write herein both of \u201cPlatonism\u201d and of Thomas\u2019 Platonism.\r\n\r\nAs a matter of fact, for Aquinas, what the Platonici teach has been reduced to a fixed way of thinking, which he treats ahistorically, although he knows much of its history. Further, at several crucial points, he self-consciously sides with them. In rescuing Aquinas from neo-Scholastic representations of his philosophy, Jordan is importantly right that Aquinas did not think of Christians as philosophers. He neglects, however, the continuities that do exist between Scholastic and neo-Scholastic treatments of philosophy. Henle, working within these, through his analysis of the texts in which Thomas speaks of Plato and the Platonici, shows how Platonism is presented as one of these viae.\r\n\r\nThis via Thomas criticizes, and for most purposes finds the way of Aristotle superior, even if he may accept some of the positions at which the Platonists arrive\u2014positions that also may be reached otherwise. For Thomas, Platonism has a fundamental point of departure, established in Plato\u2019s attempt to save certain knowledge from the consequences of the doctrine of the ancient Physicists (Priores Naturales), with whom he accepts that philosophy began. For him, Plato\u2019s flawed solution to the epistemological problem determines Platonic ontology. The Platonic philosophical position as a whole proceeds according to a distinct method of reasoning to arrive at positions. It is a series of syllogisms whose basic premises are deficient.\r\n\r\nIn the thirteenth century, only the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Timaeus were available to the Latin West. Henle concluded that Aquinas had no direct knowledge of any of them. Thus, much as with Augustine, he knows only what he takes to be Plato\u2019s doctrines and is without knowledge of the dialogues themselves. Thomas\u2019 approach to philosophy gave him little sympathy for the kind of dialectic by which the fundamentals of philosophy are questioned and reconsidered within and between the dialogues.\r\n\r\nThe substance of Thomas\u2019 own thinking shows almost no development\u2014except, significantly, in his coming to accept that knowledge involves the formation of a Plotinian-Augustinian inner word in the mind, the verbum mentis. There is certainly no development remotely comparable to that within Plato\u2019s corpus. In consequence, his picture of Plato\u2019s way of thinking is not only lacking in the most basic information but is also without the intellectual necessities for a sympathetic representation.\r\n[introduction p. 1-3]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LajmF4jRGYCVzFn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":167,"full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":450,"full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":451,"full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1348,"section_of":327,"pages":"279-324","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gersh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Das Handbuch beschreitet neue Wege in der Schilderung der komplexen Geschichte jener geistigen Str\u00f6mungen, die gemeinhin unter der Bezeichnung 'platonisch' bzw. 'neuplatonisch' zusammengefa\u00dft werden. Es behandelt in chronologischer Folge die bedeutendsten philosophischen Denkrichtungen innerhalb dieser Tradition. Die Beitr\u00e4ge untersuchen die wichtigsten platonischen Begriffe und ihre semantischen Implikationen, erl\u00e4utern die mit ihnen verbundenen philosophischen und theologischen Anspr\u00fcche, legen die Quellen der Begriffe dar und stellen sie in den Kontext der auf sie rekurrierenden bzw. ihnen zuwiderlaufenden geistigen Traditionen. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Bild des intellektuellen Lebens im Mittelalter und in der Fr\u00fchen Neuzeit. Das Werk enth\u00e4lt Beitr\u00e4ge in englischer und deutscher Sprache. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AyyoAnYvbV6wAyu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":327,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Thomas' Neoplatonic Histories: His following of Simplicius, 2002
By: Hankey, Wayne J.

Title	Thomas' Neoplatonic Histories: His following of Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Dionysius
Volume	20
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hankey, Wayne J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Following Simplicius, Thomas set up the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical viae as complementary oppositions each of which contributed to the truth. Thomas also followed Simplicius in discerning differences between the hermeneutic methods of the two great schools. He reproduced the history of philosophy of Simplicius as soon as he had his commentaries, agreed with many of his conciliating judgments, and used the same reconciling logical figures. He does not identify himself as a Peripatetic or as a Platonist. However, when he agrees that Aristotle’s way of reasoning, per viam motus, to the existence of separate substances is manifestior et certior, he is sitting in judgment with, not against, Simplicius. For both the sixth and the thirteenth century commentators, Plato and Aristotle are assimilated to each other in various ways, and the real possibility of any beginning except that from the sensible is excluded. Thomas’ hermeneutic is that of the Platonic tradition in late Antiquity – Thomas certainly thought that the truth was veiled under poetic and symbolic language and judged this to be essential for revealing the truth to humans. Consistently with this approach, in the exposition of the De Caelo, Aquinas goes so far with Simplicius as to find “something divine (fabula aliquid divinum continet)” in the myth that Atlas holds up the heavens.106 He would seem, thus, to be on his way to the reconciliation of religious as well as of philosophical traditions. If this should, in fact, be his intent, Thomas would be following Simplicius and his Neoplatonic predecessors in their deepest purposes. This Christian priest, friar, and saint would have placed himself with the “divine” Proclus among the successors of Plato. [Conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YjEdDURMoq0kV8j

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1349","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1349,"authors_free":[{"id":2004,"entry_id":1349,"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":"Thomas' Neoplatonic Histories: His following of Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Thomas' Neoplatonic Histories: His following of Simplicius"},"abstract":"Following Simplicius, Thomas set up the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical viae as complementary oppositions each of which contributed to the truth. Thomas also followed \r\nSimplicius in discerning differences between the hermeneutic methods of the two great schools. He reproduced the history of philosophy of Simplicius as soon as he had his commentaries, agreed with many of his conciliating judgments, and used the same reconciling logical figures. He does not identify himself as a Peripatetic or as a Platonist. \r\nHowever, when he agrees that Aristotle\u2019s way of reasoning, per viam motus, to the existence of \r\nseparate substances is manifestior et certior, he is sitting in judgment with, not against, Simplicius. For both the sixth and the thirteenth century commentators, Plato and Aristotle are assimilated to each other in various ways, and the real possibility of any beginning except that from the sensible is excluded. Thomas\u2019 hermeneutic is that of the Platonic tradition in late Antiquity \u2013 Thomas certainly thought that the truth was veiled under poetic and symbolic language and judged this to be essential for revealing the truth to humans. \r\nConsistently with this approach, in the exposition of the De Caelo, Aquinas goes so far with \r\nSimplicius as to find \u201csomething divine (fabula aliquid divinum continet)\u201d in the myth that Atlas \r\nholds up the heavens.106 He would seem, thus, to be on his way to the reconciliation of religious as well as of philosophical traditions. If this should, in fact, be his intent, Thomas would be following Simplicius and his Neoplatonic predecessors in their deepest purposes. This Christian priest, friar, and saint would have placed himself with the \u201cdivine\u201d Proclus among the successors of Plato. [Conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YjEdDURMoq0kV8j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":167,"full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1349,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Dionysius","volume":"20","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2002]}

Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'école d'Athènes, 2002
By: Beauchamp, Joëlle, Déroche, Vincent (Ed.)

Title	Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'école d'Athènes
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2002
Published in	Mélanges Gilbert Dagron
Pages	21-35
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Beauchamp, Joëlle
Editor(s)	Déroche, Vincent
Translator(s)

The closing of the Neoplatonic school of Athens and the two sources (John Malalas and Agathias) on the basis of which this event has been reconstructed have provoked numerous commentaries and queries. However, one element in the narrative of Malalas has apparently escaped notice. By connecting this element with two texts from the Code of Justinian, the author proposes the date of 22 September 529 for the imperial legislation forbidding the teaching of philosophy in Athens. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o4RX5UFx8ZQlU6Y

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1457","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1457,"authors_free":[{"id":2490,"entry_id":1457,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":503,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","free_first_name":"Jo\u00eblle","free_last_name":"Beauchamp","norm_person":{"id":503,"first_name":"Jo\u00eblle","last_name":"Beauchamp","full_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2491,"entry_id":1457,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":504,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","free_first_name":"Vincent","free_last_name":"D\u00e9roche","norm_person":{"id":504,"first_name":"Vincent","last_name":"D\u00e9roche","full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033332305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes","main_title":{"title":"Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes"},"abstract":"The closing of the Neoplatonic school of Athens and the two sources (John Malalas and Agathias) on the basis of which this event has been reconstructed have provoked numerous commentaries and queries. However, one element in the narrative of Malalas has apparently escaped notice. By connecting this element with two texts from the Code of Justinian, the author proposes the date of 22 September 529 for the imperial legislation forbidding the teaching of philosophy in Athens. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o4RX5UFx8ZQlU6Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":503,"full_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":504,"full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1457,"section_of":280,"pages":"21-35","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":280,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"M\u00e9langes Gilbert Dagron","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dagron2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/srVCI6CLDNJR4nL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":280,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","series":"Travaux et m\u00e9moires \/ Coll\u00e8ge de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Review of: Thiel 1999: Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen, 2001
By: Luna, Concetta

Title	Review of: Thiel 1999: Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Mnemosyne
Volume	54
Issue	4
Pages	482–500
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Luna, Concetta
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is an extensive review of R. Thiel’s monograph Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen. The author of the review, C. Luna, reproduces the book’s discussion of the location where Neoplatonic philosophers settled after leaving Athens due to the ban on pagan philosophy in 529 AD. They went to Persia and later returned to the Byzantine Empire after the peace treaty was signed. The only known historical account of their location is from Agathias, who states that they were attracted to the wisdom of King Chosroes and stayed at his court. However, they eventually left and, using a clause in the peace treaty, returned to the Byzantine Empire without having to renounce their philosophical or religious beliefs. The text examines two hypotheses as to where they went: Athens or Alexandria, but a new hypothesis is presented based on Simplicius' texts that the philosophers settled in Harran, a city close to the Persian border. The text also discusses the possibility of Simplicius returning to Athens, Alexandria, or Harran. Thiel, believes it is unlikely the philosophers went to Alexandria because the patriarch of the city would not have allowed them to continue their philosophical and anti-Christian activities. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MDj448FZ9whVcZN

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1115","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1115,"authors_free":[{"id":1684,"entry_id":1115,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta","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":"Review of: Thiel 1999: Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Thiel 1999: Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen"},"abstract":"This is an extensive review of R. Thiel\u2019s monograph Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen. The author of the review, C. Luna, reproduces the book\u2019s discussion of the location where Neoplatonic philosophers settled after leaving Athens due to the ban on pagan philosophy in 529 AD. They went to Persia and later returned to the Byzantine Empire after the peace treaty was signed. The only known historical account of their location is from Agathias, who states that they were attracted to the wisdom of King Chosroes and stayed at his court. However, they eventually left and, using a clause in the peace treaty, returned to the Byzantine Empire without having to renounce their philosophical or religious beliefs. The text examines two hypotheses as to where they went: Athens or Alexandria, but a new hypothesis is presented based on Simplicius' texts that the philosophers settled in Harran, a city close to the Persian border. The text also discusses the possibility of Simplicius returning to Athens, Alexandria, or Harran. Thiel, believes it is unlikely the philosophers went to Alexandria because the patriarch of the city would not have allowed them to continue their philosophical and anti-Christian activities. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MDj448FZ9whVcZN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1115,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne","volume":"54","issue":"4","pages":"482\u2013500"}},"sort":[2001]}

Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich, 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Pages	43-53
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E während der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn überhaupt. Für die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis. Doch gibt es, auch wenn die spätere Geschichte des Paris. sehr rätselhaft ist, gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili "Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1–76) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte. Es liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librería Privata gehörte: "It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492)." Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umständen die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. Möglicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht. Die spätere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1198","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1198,"authors_free":[{"id":1768,"entry_id":1198,"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":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"},"abstract":"Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E w\u00e4hrend der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn \u00fcberhaupt. F\u00fcr die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis.\r\n\r\nDoch gibt es, auch wenn die sp\u00e4tere Geschichte des Paris. sehr r\u00e4tselhaft ist, gute Gr\u00fcnde anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili \"Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca\" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1\u201376) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte.\r\n\r\nEs liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librer\u00eda Privata geh\u00f6rte: \"It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492).\" Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umst\u00e4nden die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. M\u00f6glicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht.\r\n\r\nDie sp\u00e4tere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1198,"section_of":10,"pages":"43-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

§2. Die problematischen Stellen & § 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay), 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	§2. Die problematischen Stellen & § 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Pages	141-159
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1199","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1199,"authors_free":[{"id":1770,"entry_id":1199,"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":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)","main_title":{"title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1199,"section_of":10,"pages":"141-159","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

κ und Nikephoros Chumnos, 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	κ und Nikephoros Chumnos
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Pages	182-189
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1200","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1200,"authors_free":[{"id":1772,"entry_id":1200,"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":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos","main_title":{"title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1200,"section_of":10,"pages":"182-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

"Simplikios", 2001
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Schneider, Helmuth (Ed.), Cancik, Hubert (Ed.)

Title	"Simplikios"
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike
Pages	578-580
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Schneider, Helmuth , Cancik, Hubert
Translator(s)

Ein kurzer Eintrag Eintrag über Simplikios in "Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike".

Online Resources

Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?, 2001
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de

{"_index":"sire","_id":"642","_score":null,"_source":{"id":642,"authors_free":[{"id":915,"entry_id":642,"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":916,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":161,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schneider, Helmuth","free_first_name":"Helmuth","free_last_name":"Schneider","norm_person":{"id":161,"first_name":"Helmuth ","last_name":"Schneider","full_name":"Schneider, Helmuth ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133788628","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":917,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":162,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cancik, Hubert","free_first_name":"Hubert","free_last_name":"Cancik","norm_person":{"id":162,"first_name":"Hubert ","last_name":"Cancik","full_name":"Cancik, Hubert ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119546124","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\"Simplikios\"","main_title":{"title":"\"Simplikios\""},"abstract":"Ein kurzer Eintrag Eintrag \u00fcber Simplikios in \"Der neue Pauly: Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike\".","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":161,"full_name":"Schneider, Helmuth ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":162,"full_name":"Cancik, Hubert ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":642,"section_of":1586,"pages":"578-580","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1586,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Cancik_Schneider_2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"B\u00e4nde 1-12\/II, Altertum - Nachweis der pr\u00e4genden Einfl\u00fcsse des Orients auf die griechisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur. Wirkung dieser Kultur auf Kelten, Germanen, Slawen, Araber, auf Judentum und Christentum; Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Sozialgeschichte, Privatleben in der Antike; die byzantinische Kultur; Entwicklungsgeschichte der philosophischen Begriffe; gleichrangige Behandlung der schriftlichen, bildlichen und dinglichen Zeugnisse. Mit einer F\u00fclle von Abbildungen.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1586,"pubplace":"Stuttgart; Weimar","publisher":"J. B. Metzler","series":"","volume":"Band 11 Sam-Tal","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Title	Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	46
Issue	4
Pages	492-526
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yjxJiXgPDTM8LDJ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"762","_score":null,"_source":{"id":762,"authors_free":[{"id":1127,"entry_id":762,"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":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yjxJiXgPDTM8LDJ","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":762,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"492-526"}},"sort":[2001]}

Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions – A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory, 2001
By: Boland, Vivian

Title	Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions – A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	New Blackfriars
Volume	82
Issue	968
Pages	467-478
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Boland, Vivian
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

One of the areas on which Fergus Kerr has kept a wise eye and to which he has made valued contributions over many years is moral philosophy. In fact, he had the task of teaching moral theology in the early years of his career but quickly moved on. He was quite relieved to do so, he told me once, not least because he found Shakespeare more relevant to morality than the geography of the fallopian tubes. Leaving behind moral theology in that sense did not mean his leaving behind a concern with moral questions. On the contrary, he has maintained great interest in developments in fundamental moral theory and in the centrality of morality for all theology. In this, he is faithful to Aquinas who, as Leonard Boyle has argued, envisaged Summa Theologiae as a work in which the moral is central. If, as Kerr himself has been arguing recently, beatitudo is a key to the unity of the Summa, then this is further support for what Boyle argued on historical and palaeographical grounds. This is not to claim that what Aquinas had in mind was anything like what moral theology came to describe later on, when a strict distinction and even separation of dogma and moral came to prevail, especially in seminary training. Aquinas belongs to an earlier world, from which contemporary moral philosophers continue to learn, in which these later distinctions did not apply. The inherent difficulty in separating them is clear if one tries to answer the question of whether the theology of grace belongs to dogma or to moral. One of the key areas in which Aquinas continues to contribute to debates in moral philosophy is in relation to virtue-theory. Anglo-Saxon moral philosophy has contributed with distinction to the revival of interest in the notion of virtue, as mentioning the names Anscombe, Foot, and MacIntyre is enough to show. A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since, for him, following Aristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition. But this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do in this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of habitus or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope, and what Christian tradition calls theological virtues. It is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e., philosophical as distinct from theological. [introduction p. 467-468]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuaVu4YEsILwhuu

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1081","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1081,"authors_free":[{"id":1636,"entry_id":1081,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":9,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boland, Vivian","free_first_name":"Vivian","free_last_name":"Boland","norm_person":{"id":9,"first_name":"Vivian","last_name":"Boland","full_name":"Boland, Vivian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/94637645X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory"},"abstract":"One of the areas on which Fergus Kerr has kept a wise eye and to which he has made valued contributions over many years is moral philosophy. In fact, he had the task of teaching moral theology in the early years of his career but quickly moved on. He was quite relieved to do so, he told me once, not least because he found Shakespeare more relevant to morality than the geography of the fallopian tubes.\r\n\r\nLeaving behind moral theology in that sense did not mean his leaving behind a concern with moral questions. On the contrary, he has maintained great interest in developments in fundamental moral theory and in the centrality of morality for all theology. In this, he is faithful to Aquinas who, as Leonard Boyle has argued, envisaged Summa Theologiae as a work in which the moral is central. If, as Kerr himself has been arguing recently, beatitudo is a key to the unity of the Summa, then this is further support for what Boyle argued on historical and palaeographical grounds.\r\n\r\nThis is not to claim that what Aquinas had in mind was anything like what moral theology came to describe later on, when a strict distinction and even separation of dogma and moral came to prevail, especially in seminary training. Aquinas belongs to an earlier world, from which contemporary moral philosophers continue to learn, in which these later distinctions did not apply. The inherent difficulty in separating them is clear if one tries to answer the question of whether the theology of grace belongs to dogma or to moral.\r\n\r\nOne of the key areas in which Aquinas continues to contribute to debates in moral philosophy is in relation to virtue-theory. Anglo-Saxon moral philosophy has contributed with distinction to the revival of interest in the notion of virtue, as mentioning the names Anscombe, Foot, and MacIntyre is enough to show. A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since, for him, following Aristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition.\r\n\r\nBut this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do in this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of habitus or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope, and what Christian tradition calls theological virtues.\r\n\r\nIt is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e., philosophical as distinct from theological. [introduction p. 467-468]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuaVu4YEsILwhuu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":9,"full_name":"Boland, Vivian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1081,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"New Blackfriars","volume":"82","issue":"968","pages":"467-478"}},"sort":[2001]}

Three Thêtas in the "Empédocle de Strasbourg", 2001
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Mansfeld, Jaap

Title	Three Thêtas in the "Empédocle de Strasbourg"
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume	54
Issue	1
Pages	78-84
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Algra, Keimpe A. , Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with "Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg." The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J

{"_index":"sire","_id":"779","_score":null,"_source":{"id":779,"authors_free":[{"id":1143,"entry_id":779,"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":1144,"entry_id":779,"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":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\"","main_title":{"title":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\""},"abstract":"We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with \"Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg.\" The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":779,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"54","issue":"1","pages":"78-84"}},"sort":[2001]}

A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus, 2001
By: Yavetz, Ido

Title	A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Volume	56
Issue	1
Pages	69-93
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Yavetz, Ido
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The geometry of the alternative reconstruction of Eudoxan planetary theory is studied. It is shown that in this framework the hippopede acquires an analytical role, consolidating the theory's geometrical underpinnings. This removes the main point of incompatibility between the alternative reconstruction and Simplicius's account of Eudoxan planetary astronomy. The analysis also suggests a compass and straight-edge procedure for drawing a point by point outline of the retrograde loop created by any given arrangement of the three inner spheres. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AL92XR05kicTihW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"839","_score":null,"_source":{"id":839,"authors_free":[{"id":1243,"entry_id":839,"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":"A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus","main_title":{"title":"A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus"},"abstract":"The geometry of the alternative reconstruction of Eudoxan planetary theory is studied. It is \r\nshown that in this framework the hippopede acquires an analytical role, consolidating the theory's geometrical underpinnings. This removes the main point of incompatibility between the alternative reconstruction and Simplicius's account of Eudoxan planetary astronomy. The analysis also suggests a compass and straight-edge procedure for drawing a point by point outline of the retrograde loop created by any given arrangement of the three inner spheres. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AL92XR05kicTihW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":366,"full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":839,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"56","issue":"1","pages":"69-93"}},"sort":[2001]}

Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter ("De mal. subs." 30-7), 2001
By: Opsomer, Jan

Title	Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter ("De mal. subs." 30-7)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	46
Issue	2
Pages	154-188
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In De malorum subsistentia chapters 30–37, Proclus criticizes the view that evil is to be identified with matter. His main target is Plotinus' account in Enn. 1.8 [51]. Proclus denies that matter is the cause of evil in the soul, and that it is evil or a principle of evil. According to Proclus, matter is good because it is produced by the One. Plotinus' doctrine of matter as evil is the result of a different conception of emanation, according to which matter does not revert to its principle. Proclus claims that positing a principle of evil either amounts to a coarse dualism or makes the Good ultimately responsible for evil. Plotinus does not seem to escape the latter consequence if he is to remain committed to the Neoplatonic conception of causation. Plotinus equated matter with privation and said it is a kind of non-being that is the contrary of substance, thus violating fundamental Aristotelian principles. Proclus reinstates Aristotelian orthodoxy, as does Simplicius in his Commentary on the Categories. It is possible that Iamblichus was the source of both Proclus and Simplicius, and that he was the originator of the parhypostasis theory and the inventor of the anti-Plotinian arguments. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Hey5Ym2eaERyB7G

{"_index":"sire","_id":"864","_score":null,"_source":{"id":864,"authors_free":[{"id":1268,"entry_id":864,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter (\"De mal. subs.\" 30-7)","main_title":{"title":"Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter (\"De mal. subs.\" 30-7)"},"abstract":"In De malorum subsistentia chapters 30\u201337, Proclus criticizes the view that evil is to be identified with matter. His main target is Plotinus' account in Enn. 1.8 [51]. Proclus denies that matter is the cause of evil in the soul, and that it is evil or a principle of evil. According to Proclus, matter is good because it is produced by the One.\r\n\r\nPlotinus' doctrine of matter as evil is the result of a different conception of emanation, according to which matter does not revert to its principle. Proclus claims that positing a principle of evil either amounts to a coarse dualism or makes the Good ultimately responsible for evil. Plotinus does not seem to escape the latter consequence if he is to remain committed to the Neoplatonic conception of causation.\r\n\r\nPlotinus equated matter with privation and said it is a kind of non-being that is the contrary of substance, thus violating fundamental Aristotelian principles. Proclus reinstates Aristotelian orthodoxy, as does Simplicius in his Commentary on the Categories. It is possible that Iamblichus was the source of both Proclus and Simplicius, and that he was the originator of the parhypostasis theory and the inventor of the anti-Plotinian arguments. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hey5Ym2eaERyB7G","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":864,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"46","issue":"2","pages":"154-188"}},"sort":[2001]}

Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d’Epictète. I : Chapitres I–XXIX, 2001
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d’Epictète. I : Chapitres I–XXIX
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2001
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Les Belles Lettres
Series	Collection des universités de France: Série grecque
Volume	411
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)

Le philosophe néoplatonicien Simplicius a vécu au VIe siècle de notre ère. Originaire de Cilicie en Asie Mineure, il se rendit en Perse accompagné de six autres philosophes, probablement à la suite d'un décret de Justinien leur interdisant d'enseigner et de percevoir un salaire public. Il rentra dans son pays suite au traité de paix conclu en 532 entre le roi Perse Chosroès et Justinien, et s'installa à Harrân, ville de l'Empire Byzantin proche de la frontière perse. C'est là qu'il composa les cinq commentaires qui nous sont parvenus sous son nom. Parmi ces commentaires, celui traitant du Manuel d'Epictète est le seul qui ne soit pas consacré à un traité aristotélicien. Comment expliquer le fait que Simplicius, philosophe platonicien, ait commenté les maximes éthiques d'un stoïcien ? Les néoplatoniciens, depuis Porphyres, avaient défini un canon de quatre degrés de vertus : les vertus civiles ou politiques, les vertus cathartiques, les vertus théorétiques et les vertus paradigmatiques. Lorsqu'on parvenait au degré le plus élevé des vertus, la séparation de l'âme et du corps était totalement accomplie. Néanmoins, avant de parvenir à cet état d'apathéia, une instruction éthique préparatoire était nécessaire pour atteindre le premier degré des vertus. Ainsi, pour Simplicius, le Manuel d'Epictète représentait une propédeutique à la pratique morale visant au premier degré des vertus, les vertus civiles ou politiques. Par la lecture des sentences du philosophe stoïcien, le disciple pouvait parvenir à la domination des passions par la raison avant de s'élever vers la contemplation de l'Intellect, qui représente pour les platoniciens le niveau d'être le plus élevé. Le premier volume du Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epictète dans la Collection des Universités de France comprend le texte de Simplicius accompagné de la traduction d'Ilsetraut Hadot. Le traité est précédé d'une introduction dans laquelle sont présentés la vie et l'oeuvre du philosophe, les enjeux philosophiques du Commentaire, ainsi que l'histoire du texte. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iMCK5bee0rBbYff

{"_index":"sire","_id":"134","_score":null,"_source":{"id":134,"authors_free":[{"id":166,"entry_id":134,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2257,"entry_id":134,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019Epict\u00e8te. I : Chapitres I\u2013XXIX","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019Epict\u00e8te. I : Chapitres I\u2013XXIX"},"abstract":"Le philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a v\u00e9cu au VIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re. Originaire de Cilicie en Asie Mineure, il se rendit en Perse accompagn\u00e9 de six autres philosophes, probablement \u00e0 la suite d'un d\u00e9cret de Justinien leur interdisant d'enseigner et de percevoir un salaire public. Il rentra dans son pays suite au trait\u00e9 de paix conclu en 532 entre le roi Perse Chosro\u00e8s et Justinien, et s'installa \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n, ville de l'Empire Byzantin proche de la fronti\u00e8re perse. C'est l\u00e0 qu'il composa les cinq commentaires qui nous sont parvenus sous son nom. Parmi ces commentaires, celui traitant du Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te est le seul qui ne soit pas consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 un trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien. Comment expliquer le fait que Simplicius, philosophe platonicien, ait comment\u00e9 les maximes \u00e9thiques d'un sto\u00efcien ? Les n\u00e9oplatoniciens, depuis Porphyres, avaient d\u00e9fini un canon de quatre degr\u00e9s de vertus : les vertus civiles ou politiques, les vertus cathartiques, les vertus th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques et les vertus paradigmatiques. Lorsqu'on parvenait au degr\u00e9 le plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 des vertus, la s\u00e9paration de l'\u00e2me et du corps \u00e9tait totalement accomplie. N\u00e9anmoins, avant de parvenir \u00e0 cet \u00e9tat d'apath\u00e9ia, une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire \u00e9tait n\u00e9cessaire pour atteindre le premier degr\u00e9 des vertus. Ainsi, pour Simplicius, le Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te repr\u00e9sentait une prop\u00e9deutique \u00e0 la pratique morale visant au premier degr\u00e9 des vertus, les vertus civiles ou politiques. Par la lecture des sentences du philosophe sto\u00efcien, le disciple pouvait parvenir \u00e0 la domination des passions par la raison avant de s'\u00e9lever vers la contemplation de l'Intellect, qui repr\u00e9sente pour les platoniciens le niveau d'\u00eatre le plus \u00e9lev\u00e9. Le premier volume du Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te dans la Collection des Universit\u00e9s de France comprend le texte de Simplicius accompagn\u00e9 de la traduction d'Ilsetraut Hadot. Le trait\u00e9 est pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 d'une introduction dans laquelle sont pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s la vie et l'oeuvre du philosophe, les enjeux philosophiques du Commentaire, ainsi que l'histoire du texte. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2001","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iMCK5bee0rBbYff","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":134,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"Collection des universit\u00e9s de France: S\u00e9rie grecque","volume":"411","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 3: Alexander von Aphrodisias, 2001
By: Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.), Moraux, Paul, Wolfgang Kullmann (Ed.), Robert W. Sharples (Ed.)

Title	Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 3: Alexander von Aphrodisias
Type	Book Series
Language	German
Date	2001
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Moraux, Paul
Editor(s)	Wiesner, Jürgen , Wolfgang Kullmann , Robert W. Sharples
Translator(s)

In der spätantiken Philosophie, weiß Rezensent Thomas Sören Hoffmann zu berichten, war es nicht verpönt, auf die eigene Originalität zu verzichten und sich als Sprachrohr und Exeget der großen Denker zu verstehen - im Gegenteil. Auch Alexander von Aphrodisias (um 200 n.Chr.), dem Paul Moraux sein Buch gewidmet hat, gehört zu dieser Exegeten-Tradition. Ihm verdankt die "Nachwelt" Referate von verschollenen Aristoteles-Texten. Bemerkenswert findet Hoffmann, dass Moraux sich vor allem den noch nicht eingehend erforschten Gebieten des aristotelischen Denkens in der Alexander-Rezeption widmet. Dass bedingt, dass Moraux kein lückenloses Kompendium bietet, aber auf jeden Fall, lobt Hoffmann, eine "umfassende" Dokumentation über Moraux' Beschäftigung mit den Begriffen der Zeit, der Seele und der Metaphysik bei Alexander. Der Rezensent bedauert allerdings, dass das Ethik-Kapitel, mit dem der verstorbene Moraux sich nicht mehr auseinandersetzen konnte, unter fremder Feder in den Band aufgenommen wurde. Hier komme es zu einem Stilbruch, der nach Ansicht des Rezensenten hätte vermieden werden können, wenn das Ethik-Kapitel im geplanten Supplement-Band erschienen wäre, anstelle des Registers, das der Leser, so Hoffmann, "schmerzlich vermisst". Versöhnlich jedoch das Fazit: Lange hat die Forschung auf diesen Band gewartet - zu Recht. [Rezensionsnotiz Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/n4lUtE7tjgwtpRZ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"188","_score":null,"_source":{"id":188,"authors_free":[{"id":2492,"entry_id":188,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2493,"entry_id":188,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2765,"entry_id":188,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wolfgang Kullmann","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Kullmann","norm_person":null},{"id":2766,"entry_id":188,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robert W. Sharples","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 3: Alexander von Aphrodisias","main_title":{"title":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 3: Alexander von Aphrodisias"},"abstract":"In der sp\u00e4tantiken Philosophie, wei\u00df Rezensent Thomas S\u00f6ren Hoffmann zu berichten, war es nicht verp\u00f6nt, auf die eigene Originalit\u00e4t zu verzichten und sich als Sprachrohr und Exeget der gro\u00dfen Denker zu verstehen - im Gegenteil. Auch Alexander von Aphrodisias (um 200 n.Chr.), dem Paul Moraux sein Buch gewidmet hat, geh\u00f6rt zu dieser Exegeten-Tradition. Ihm verdankt die \"Nachwelt\" Referate von verschollenen Aristoteles-Texten. Bemerkenswert findet Hoffmann, dass Moraux sich vor allem den noch nicht eingehend erforschten Gebieten des aristotelischen Denkens in der Alexander-Rezeption widmet. Dass bedingt, dass Moraux kein l\u00fcckenloses Kompendium bietet, aber auf jeden Fall, lobt Hoffmann, eine \"umfassende\" Dokumentation \u00fcber Moraux' Besch\u00e4ftigung mit den Begriffen der Zeit, der Seele und der Metaphysik bei Alexander. Der Rezensent bedauert allerdings, dass das Ethik-Kapitel, mit dem der verstorbene Moraux sich nicht mehr auseinandersetzen konnte, unter fremder Feder in den Band aufgenommen wurde. Hier komme es zu einem Stilbruch, der nach Ansicht des Rezensenten h\u00e4tte vermieden werden k\u00f6nnen, wenn das Ethik-Kapitel im geplanten Supplement-Band erschienen w\u00e4re, anstelle des Registers, das der Leser, so Hoffmann, \"schmerzlich vermisst\". Vers\u00f6hnlich jedoch das Fazit: Lange hat die Forschung auf diesen Band gewartet - zu Recht. [Rezensionsnotiz Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]","btype":5,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/n4lUtE7tjgwtpRZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":188,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"7\/1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.6–10’, 2001
By: Simplicius , McKirahan, Richard D. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.6–10’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2001
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	McKirahan, Richard D.
Translator(s)	McKirahan, Richard D.(McKirahan, Richard D.) ,

Aristotle's Physics is about the causes of motion and culminates in a proof that God is needed as the ultimate cause of motion. Aristotle argues that things in motion need to be moved by something other than themselves - he rejects Plato's self-movers. On pain of regress, there must be an unmoved mover. If this unmoved mover is to cause motion eternally, it needs infinite power. It cannot, then, be a body, since bodies, being of finite size, cannot house infinite power. The unmoved mover is therefore an incorporeal God. Simplicius reveals that his teacher, Ammonius, harmonised Aristotle with Plato to counter Christian charges of pagan disagreement, by making Aristotle's God a cause of beginningless movement, but of beginningless existence of the universe. Eternal existence, not less than eternal motion, calls for an infinite, and hence incorporeal, force. By an irony, this anti-Christian interpretation turned Aristotle's God from a thinker into a certain kind of Creator, and so helped to make Aristotle's God acceptable to St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. This text provides a translation of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's work. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/T8coa6uOHoikcaC

{"_index":"sire","_id":"102","_score":null,"_source":{"id":102,"authors_free":[{"id":119,"entry_id":102,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":253,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"McKirahan","norm_person":{"id":253,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"McKirahan","full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131702254","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2300,"entry_id":102,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2301,"entry_id":102,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":253,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"McKirahan","norm_person":{"id":253,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"McKirahan","full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131702254","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.6\u201310\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.6\u201310\u2019"},"abstract":"Aristotle's Physics is about the causes of motion and culminates in a proof that God is needed as the ultimate cause of motion. Aristotle argues that things in motion need to be moved by something other than themselves - he rejects Plato's self-movers. On pain of regress, there must be an unmoved mover. If this unmoved mover is to cause motion eternally, it needs infinite power. It cannot, then, be a body, since bodies, being of finite size, cannot house infinite power. The unmoved mover is therefore an incorporeal God. Simplicius reveals that his teacher, Ammonius, harmonised Aristotle with Plato to counter Christian charges of pagan disagreement, by making Aristotle's God a cause of beginningless movement, but of beginningless existence of the universe. Eternal existence, not less than eternal motion, calls for an infinite, and hence incorporeal, force. By an irony, this anti-Christian interpretation turned Aristotle's God from a thinker into a certain kind of Creator, and so helped to make Aristotle's God acceptable to St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. This text provides a translation of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's work. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T8coa6uOHoikcaC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":253,"full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":253,"full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":102,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Simplicius. Commentaire sur les ‹Catégories› d’Aristote, Chapitres 2–4, 2001
By: Simplicius

Title	Simplicius. Commentaire sur les ‹Catégories› d’Aristote, Chapitres 2–4
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2001
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Les Belles Lettres
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hoffmann, Philipe(Hoffmann, Philippe ) ,

Ce volume prend la suite des deux fascicules publies dans la serie Philosophia antiqua (Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Categories, fasc. I: Proeme, trad. de Ph. Hoffmann, commentaire par I. Hadot [vol. 50], et fasc. III: Premier chapitre, trad. de Ph. Hoffmann, commentaire par C. Luna, Leiden-Kobenhavn-Koln 1990 [vol. 51]). Il sera suivi d'autres volumes qui, nous l'esperons, permettront de donner une traduction francaise integrale du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Categories. Ce volume, consacre aux chapitres 2 a 4 des Categories, par lesquels se termine le preambule a l'expose des categories proprement dit, a pris une ampleur considerable a cause de la comparaison analytique avec les sept autres commentaires neoplatonciens sur les Categories: Porphyre, Dexippe, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore, Elias, Boece. Cela nous a permis d'etablir les rapports entre ces textes et de decrire la technique exegetique propre a chacun d'entre eux. Ces resultats une fois acquis, il sera possible de reduire considerablement la taille des volumes qui vont suivre. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZUh8fz6yg7aXHBr

{"_index":"sire","_id":"105","_score":null,"_source":{"id":105,"authors_free":[{"id":123,"entry_id":105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philipe","free_first_name":"Philipe","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":2249,"entry_id":105,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les \u2039Cat\u00e9gories\u203a d\u2019Aristote, Chapitres 2\u20134","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les \u2039Cat\u00e9gories\u203a d\u2019Aristote, Chapitres 2\u20134"},"abstract":"Ce volume prend la suite des deux fascicules publies dans la serie Philosophia antiqua (Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Categories, fasc. I: Proeme, trad. de Ph. Hoffmann, commentaire par I. Hadot [vol. 50], et fasc. III: Premier chapitre, trad. de Ph. Hoffmann, commentaire par C. Luna, Leiden-Kobenhavn-Koln 1990 [vol. 51]). Il sera suivi d'autres volumes qui, nous l'esperons, permettront de donner une traduction francaise integrale du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Categories. Ce volume, consacre aux chapitres 2 a 4 des Categories, par lesquels se termine le preambule a l'expose des categories proprement dit, a pris une ampleur considerable a cause de la comparaison analytique avec les sept autres commentaires neoplatonciens sur les Categories: Porphyre, Dexippe, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore, Elias, Boece. Cela nous a permis d'etablir les rapports entre ces textes et de decrire la technique exegetique propre a chacun d'entre eux. Ces resultats une fois acquis, il sera possible de reduire considerablement la taille des volumes qui vont suivre. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2001","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZUh8fz6yg7aXHBr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":105,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’, 2001
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de (Ed.), Fleet, Barrie (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2001
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de , Fleet, Barrie
Translator(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de(de Haas, Frans A. J.) , Fleet, Barrie(Fleet, Barrie) ,

Chapters 5 and 6 of Aristotle's Categories describe his first two categories, Substance and Quantity. It is usually taken that Plotinus attacked Aristotle's Categories, but that Porphyry and Iamblichus restored it to the curriculum once and for all. Nonetheless, the introduction to this text stresses how much of the defence of Aristotle Porphyry was able to draw out of Plotinus' critical discussion. Simplicius' commentary is our most comprehensive account of the debate on the validity of Aristotle's Categories. One subject discussed by Simplicius in these chapters is where the differentia of a species (eg the rationality of humans) fits into the scheme of categories. Another is why Aristotle elevates the category of Quantity to second place, above the category of Quality. Further, de Haas shows how Simplicius distinguishes different kinds of universal order to solve some of the problems. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/w7oLwHhAgbvNtH9

Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione, 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2001
Publication Place	Wiesbaden
Publisher	Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag
Series	Serta Graeca. Beiträge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte
Volume	12
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In seiner Schrift „De generatione et corruptione“ entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch – und dies im angelsächsischen Sinne des Wortes – das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes „genesthai“ zu klären und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einführung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen. Die philosophische Überlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und – unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen – um das Verhältnis Gottes zu seinen Geschöpfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die große Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und später auf die Physiker-Ärzte Süditaliens ausgeübt hat. Und man denke schließlich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache überliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausgeübt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form münden kann. Auch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdrücklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der größten islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts geführt. Der Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen Übersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zurückgeht, dass die süditalienischen Ärzte es nicht versäumt haben, sich unverzüglich die vielfältigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version übersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, – dass übrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit Süditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden können, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten –, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern. Der Autor liefert mit seiner Überlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das für eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerläßliche Stemma. Er führt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befaßt. Nur die Überlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE

{"_index":"sire","_id":"10","_score":null,"_source":{"id":10,"authors_free":[{"id":10,"entry_id":10,"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":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione"},"abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","btype":1,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Augustin, «Confessions» 4, 16, 28-29, «Soliloques» 2, 20, 34-36 et les «Commentaires des catégories», 2001
By: Doucet, Dominique

Title	Augustin, «Confessions» 4, 16, 28-29, «Soliloques» 2, 20, 34-36 et les «Commentaires des catégories»
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2001
Journal	Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica
Volume	93
Issue	3
Pages	372-392
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Doucet, Dominique
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Au terme de cette étude montrant les points de consonance entre les thèmes développés dans les derniers paragraphes des Soliloques et les problématiques mises en œuvre dans les commentaires des Catégories, deux conclusions principales se présentent. Premièrement, l'antériorité des écrits d'Augustin sur la rédaction de la plus grande partie des commentaires des Catégories oblige à considérer un seul et même auteur ou une seule et même source, tant pour Augustin que pour les auteurs des commentaires ultérieurs. La place que reçoit le commentaire de Porphyre dans les autres commentaires et l'importance de cet auteur dans l'élaboration des schémas de pensée augustiniens conduisent naturellement à la conclusion que c'est dans une œuvre porphyrienne qu'Augustin a pu rencontrer l'essentiel de cette argumentation. Il reste alors à tenter de déterminer laquelle. Le peu d'intérêt qu'Augustin accorde aux lectures des magistri eruditissimi qu'il évoque dans les Confessions semble écarter l'hypothèse qu'il garderait un vif souvenir des conversations de son adolescence. Autrement, il n'aurait pas oublié à ce point d'en mentionner l'importance, comme il le fait pour sa lecture de l'Hortensius et pour celle des libri platonicorum, qui eurent une influence déterminante sur l'évolution de sa pensée. Il semble alors plus probable de considérer qu'Augustin a rencontré une argumentation identique à celle qui se trouve dans les commentaires ultérieurs des Catégories, celle de Porphyre en son propre commentaire, qu'Augustin a pu rencontrer soit dans un texte du dossier des libri platonicorum, soit inséré dans un autre écrit comme le De regressu animae ou encore le Zêtêma sur l'immortalité de l'âme, dont nous savons qu'il prit connaissance. Il serait même tentant de considérer que la progression même des Soliloques suit en parallèle l'essentiel de la progression qui pourrait être celle du De regressu. Cette hypothèse nous amène directement au second volet de cette conclusion. Si Augustin emprunte un certain nombre de thèmes à l'univers néoplatonicien et porphyrien, il ne manque pas de les transformer profondément. Nous avons déjà signalé, dans une lecture de Sol. 2, 18, 32, la manière dont Augustin reprend les degrés de la hiérarchie des êtres du néoplatonisme et la transforme en une hiérarchie des degrés du vrai. En effet, la hiérarchie de Marius Victorinus (uere sunt, quae sunt, non uere non sunt, uere non sunt) se retrouve en partie chez Augustin sous la forme : uere uerum (ueritas), uerum, tendit esse et non est. Cette transformation de la hiérarchie des êtres en une hiérarchie des degrés du vrai s'explique assez bien par le projet même des Soliloques : connaître Dieu et l'âme, et par la démonstration de l'immortalité de l'âme qui s'y trouve. C'est par la présence en l'âme de l'immortelle Vérité que l'âme est assurée de son immortalité, et cette preuve, dans l'esprit d'Augustin, est supérieure à celle, classique, de l'auto-motricité de l'âme. Dans les paragraphes 34 à 36 de la fin des Soliloques, c'est une semblable hiérarchie des degrés du vrai que nous rencontrons. Il est donc nécessaire sur ce point de conclure que tout en s'inspirant des thèmes néoplatoniciens et en particulier porphyriens, Augustin leur fait subir un déplacement notable et développe, plutôt qu'une ontologie, une métaphysique du vrai qui lui permet de connaître son âme, d'accéder à la certitude de son immortalité, et de progresser dans sa recherche de Dieu, recherche dont il résumera l'essentiel de la progression dans les Confessions et dont il dressera les harmoniques dans le De Trinitate. [conclusion p 390-392]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ilXNYhEQOhMEPLW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"600","_score":null,"_source":{"id":600,"authors_free":[{"id":851,"entry_id":600,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":70,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Doucet, Dominique ","free_first_name":"Dominique","free_last_name":"Doucet","norm_person":{"id":70,"first_name":"Dominique ","last_name":"Doucet","full_name":"Doucet, Dominique ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105244430X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Augustin, \u00abConfessions\u00bb 4, 16, 28-29, \u00abSoliloques\u00bb 2, 20, 34-36 et les \u00abCommentaires des cat\u00e9gories\u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Augustin, \u00abConfessions\u00bb 4, 16, 28-29, \u00abSoliloques\u00bb 2, 20, 34-36 et les \u00abCommentaires des cat\u00e9gories\u00bb"},"abstract":"Au terme de cette \u00e9tude montrant les points de consonance entre les th\u00e8mes d\u00e9velopp\u00e9s dans les derniers paragraphes des Soliloques et les probl\u00e9matiques mises en \u0153uvre dans les commentaires des Cat\u00e9gories, deux conclusions principales se pr\u00e9sentent. Premi\u00e8rement, l'ant\u00e9riorit\u00e9 des \u00e9crits d'Augustin sur la r\u00e9daction de la plus grande partie des commentaires des Cat\u00e9gories oblige \u00e0 consid\u00e9rer un seul et m\u00eame auteur ou une seule et m\u00eame source, tant pour Augustin que pour les auteurs des commentaires ult\u00e9rieurs. La place que re\u00e7oit le commentaire de Porphyre dans les autres commentaires et l'importance de cet auteur dans l'\u00e9laboration des sch\u00e9mas de pens\u00e9e augustiniens conduisent naturellement \u00e0 la conclusion que c'est dans une \u0153uvre porphyrienne qu'Augustin a pu rencontrer l'essentiel de cette argumentation.\r\n\r\nIl reste alors \u00e0 tenter de d\u00e9terminer laquelle. Le peu d'int\u00e9r\u00eat qu'Augustin accorde aux lectures des magistri eruditissimi qu'il \u00e9voque dans les Confessions semble \u00e9carter l'hypoth\u00e8se qu'il garderait un vif souvenir des conversations de son adolescence. Autrement, il n'aurait pas oubli\u00e9 \u00e0 ce point d'en mentionner l'importance, comme il le fait pour sa lecture de l'Hortensius et pour celle des libri platonicorum, qui eurent une influence d\u00e9terminante sur l'\u00e9volution de sa pens\u00e9e.\r\n\r\nIl semble alors plus probable de consid\u00e9rer qu'Augustin a rencontr\u00e9 une argumentation identique \u00e0 celle qui se trouve dans les commentaires ult\u00e9rieurs des Cat\u00e9gories, celle de Porphyre en son propre commentaire, qu'Augustin a pu rencontrer soit dans un texte du dossier des libri platonicorum, soit ins\u00e9r\u00e9 dans un autre \u00e9crit comme le De regressu animae ou encore le Z\u00eat\u00eama sur l'immortalit\u00e9 de l'\u00e2me, dont nous savons qu'il prit connaissance.\r\n\r\nIl serait m\u00eame tentant de consid\u00e9rer que la progression m\u00eame des Soliloques suit en parall\u00e8le l'essentiel de la progression qui pourrait \u00eatre celle du De regressu.\r\n\r\nCette hypoth\u00e8se nous am\u00e8ne directement au second volet de cette conclusion. Si Augustin emprunte un certain nombre de th\u00e8mes \u00e0 l'univers n\u00e9oplatonicien et porphyrien, il ne manque pas de les transformer profond\u00e9ment. Nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9, dans une lecture de Sol. 2, 18, 32, la mani\u00e8re dont Augustin reprend les degr\u00e9s de la hi\u00e9rarchie des \u00eatres du n\u00e9oplatonisme et la transforme en une hi\u00e9rarchie des degr\u00e9s du vrai. En effet, la hi\u00e9rarchie de Marius Victorinus (uere sunt, quae sunt, non uere non sunt, uere non sunt) se retrouve en partie chez Augustin sous la forme : uere uerum (ueritas), uerum, tendit esse et non est.\r\n\r\nCette transformation de la hi\u00e9rarchie des \u00eatres en une hi\u00e9rarchie des degr\u00e9s du vrai s'explique assez bien par le projet m\u00eame des Soliloques : conna\u00eetre Dieu et l'\u00e2me, et par la d\u00e9monstration de l'immortalit\u00e9 de l'\u00e2me qui s'y trouve. C'est par la pr\u00e9sence en l'\u00e2me de l'immortelle V\u00e9rit\u00e9 que l'\u00e2me est assur\u00e9e de son immortalit\u00e9, et cette preuve, dans l'esprit d'Augustin, est sup\u00e9rieure \u00e0 celle, classique, de l'auto-motricit\u00e9 de l'\u00e2me.\r\n\r\nDans les paragraphes 34 \u00e0 36 de la fin des Soliloques, c'est une semblable hi\u00e9rarchie des degr\u00e9s du vrai que nous rencontrons. Il est donc n\u00e9cessaire sur ce point de conclure que tout en s'inspirant des th\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens et en particulier porphyriens, Augustin leur fait subir un d\u00e9placement notable et d\u00e9veloppe, plut\u00f4t qu'une ontologie, une m\u00e9taphysique du vrai qui lui permet de conna\u00eetre son \u00e2me, d'acc\u00e9der \u00e0 la certitude de son immortalit\u00e9, et de progresser dans sa recherche de Dieu, recherche dont il r\u00e9sumera l'essentiel de la progression dans les Confessions et dont il dressera les harmoniques dans le De Trinitate. [conclusion p 390-392]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ilXNYhEQOhMEPLW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":70,"full_name":"Doucet, Dominique ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":600,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica","volume":"93","issue":"3","pages":"372-392"}},"sort":[2001]}

Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike, 2001
By: Huber Cancik (Ed.), Helmuth Schneider (Ed.)

Title	Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2001
Publication Place	Stuttgart; Weimar
Publisher	J. B. Metzler
Volume	Band 11 Sam-Tal
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Huber Cancik , Helmuth Schneider
Translator(s)

Bände 1-12/II, Altertum - Nachweis der prägenden Einflüsse des Orients auf die griechisch-römische Kultur. Wirkung dieser Kultur auf Kelten, Germanen, Slawen, Araber, auf Judentum und Christentum; Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Sozialgeschichte, Privatleben in der Antike; die byzantinische Kultur; Entwicklungsgeschichte der philosophischen Begriffe; gleichrangige Behandlung der schriftlichen, bildlichen und dinglichen Zeugnisse. Mit einer Fülle von Abbildungen.

Online Resources

Zeno of Elea's Argument from Bisection: Newly Discovered Evidence in a Hebrew Translation of Averroes, 2001
By: Glasner, Ruth

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1586","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1586,"authors_free":[{"id":2784,"entry_id":1586,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Huber Cancik","free_first_name":"Hubert","free_last_name":"Cancik","norm_person":null},{"id":2785,"entry_id":1586,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Helmuth Schneider","free_first_name":"Helmuth","free_last_name":"Schneider","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike","main_title":{"title":"Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike"},"abstract":"B\u00e4nde 1-12\/II, Altertum - Nachweis der pr\u00e4genden Einfl\u00fcsse des Orients auf die griechisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur. Wirkung dieser Kultur auf Kelten, Germanen, Slawen, Araber, auf Judentum und Christentum; Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Sozialgeschichte, Privatleben in der Antike; die byzantinische Kultur; Entwicklungsgeschichte der philosophischen Begriffe; gleichrangige Behandlung der schriftlichen, bildlichen und dinglichen Zeugnisse. Mit einer F\u00fclle von Abbildungen.","btype":4,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1586,"pubplace":"Stuttgart; Weimar","publisher":"J. B. Metzler","series":"","volume":"Band 11 Sam-Tal","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Title	Zeno of Elea's Argument from Bisection: Newly Discovered Evidence in a Hebrew Translation of Averroes
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Aleph
Volume	1
Pages	285-293
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Glasner, Ruth
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

To conclude, in the Hebrew version of Averroes' long commentary on the Physics, comment 1.30, we find what seems to be Alexander's version of Zeno's argument ek tes dichotomias against plurality. Averroes interprets Zeno's argument as contradicting Parmenides', thus drawing attention to a problem that is latent in Simplicius' commentary. [conclusion, p. 293]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vuPTw5sFrUNAd8H

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1318","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1318,"authors_free":[{"id":1952,"entry_id":1318,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":128,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Glasner, Ruth","free_first_name":"Ruth","free_last_name":"Glasner","norm_person":{"id":128,"first_name":"Ruth","last_name":"Glasner","full_name":"Glasner, Ruth","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138576793","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zeno of Elea's Argument from Bisection: Newly Discovered Evidence in a Hebrew Translation of Averroes","main_title":{"title":"Zeno of Elea's Argument from Bisection: Newly Discovered Evidence in a Hebrew Translation of Averroes"},"abstract":"To conclude, in the Hebrew version of Averroes' long commentary on the Physics, comment 1.30, we find what seems to be Alexander's version of Zeno's argument ek tes dichotomias against plurality. Averroes interprets Zeno's argument as contradicting Parmenides', \r\nthus drawing attention to a problem that is latent in Simplicius' commentary. [conclusion, p. 293]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vuPTw5sFrUNAd8H","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":128,"full_name":"Glasner, Ruth","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1318,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aleph","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"285-293"}},"sort":[2001]}

Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes, 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Pages	315-350
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Textträger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu berücksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verständnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Hauptträgern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1. Einige Aspekte der indirekten Überlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit hängt die syrisch-arabische Übersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebräische Übertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskräftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte für die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander. Noch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbezüglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zurück, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, nämlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vinä. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1382","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1382,"authors_free":[{"id":2131,"entry_id":1382,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"},"abstract":"Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Texttr\u00e4ger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu ber\u00fccksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verst\u00e4ndnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Haupttr\u00e4gern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1.\r\n\r\nEinige Aspekte der indirekten \u00dcberlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit h\u00e4ngt die syrisch-arabische \u00dcbersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebr\u00e4ische \u00dcbertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskr\u00e4ftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte f\u00fcr die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander.\r\n\r\nNoch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbez\u00fcglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zur\u00fcck, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, n\u00e4mlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vin\u00e4. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1382,"section_of":10,"pages":"315-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance, 2001
By: Stone, Abraham D., Wisnovsky, Robert (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2001
Published in	Aspects of Avicenna
Pages	73-130
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Stone, Abraham D.
Editor(s)	Wisnovsky, Robert
Translator(s)

Simplicius and Avicenna face the same difficult problems, and both reach interpretatively and conceptually radical solutions. The interpretative radicalness is reflected in the fact that their discussions of this issue are unusually disengaged from Aristotle’s text. The main discussion in Simplicius appears in the commentary on Physics 1.7—a chapter in which Aristotle does not mention body at all—and begins on its own, without reference to any particular textual segment. Avicenna’s main discussion of corporeity in Shifa’ II, 2.2-3 is likewise, and unlike most other chapter-length parts of the Shifa’, not easily associated with any one locus in Aristotle. Both Avicenna and Simplicius, moreover, introduce terminology—“corporeal form,” “indeterminate dimensions,” “deviation”—that is neither Aristotelian nor even Plotinian. The conceptual radicalness can be summed up by saying that both of these solutions reduce corporeity, in the relevant sense, to something extremely abstract. Both refuse to identify it with any of the familiar and easily picturable properties of bodies (extension, volume, surface, three-dimensionality, rigidity, resistance, inertia, weight). This resort to a high degree of conceptual abstraction and interpretative independence reflects both the extreme difficulty of the metaphysical problems and the strong pressure to achieve systematically maintainable solutions where such fundamental issues are at stake. The two solutions agree to a great extent in detail. The abstract property with which both Simplicius and Avicenna wish to identify corporeity is divisibility or partibility: the potency or aptitude by which a material substance, one in actu, is at the same time potentially many. The difference between them is subtle. Avicenna thinks of corporeity, roughly speaking, as the kind of unity (ultimately: substantial unity) that possesses such divisibility. He therefore identifies corporeity with a certain substantial form. Simplicius, on the other hand, thinks of corporeity as the privation by which an enmattered substantial form “deviates” from its intelligible archetype—i.e., by which it deviates from true unity and true being. He therefore identifies corporeity with matter. Both solutions are relatively tenable within their own systematic contexts; neither, however, could likely survive transplantation to the other system. Simplicius’ solution ultimately relies on a full-blown Neoplatonic theory of emanation that Avicenna does not share, while Avicenna’s depends on his non-Neoplatonic views about essential and accidental properties and about the coexistence of multiple substantial forms in a single composite substance. [conclusion p. 113-114]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GJWf1yj79pw3EdQ

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1425","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1425,"authors_free":[{"id":2236,"entry_id":1425,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":409,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","free_first_name":" Abraham D.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":409,"first_name":" Abraham D.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2449,"entry_id":1425,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":483,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","free_first_name":"Robert","free_last_name":"Wisnovsky","norm_person":{"id":483,"first_name":"Robert","last_name":"Wisnovsky","full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance"},"abstract":"Simplicius and Avicenna face the same difficult problems, and both reach interpretatively and conceptually radical solutions. The interpretative radicalness is reflected in the fact that their discussions of this issue are unusually disengaged from Aristotle\u2019s text. The main discussion in Simplicius appears in the commentary on Physics 1.7\u2014a chapter in which Aristotle does not mention body at all\u2014and begins on its own, without reference to any particular textual segment. Avicenna\u2019s main discussion of corporeity in Shifa\u2019 II, 2.2-3 is likewise, and unlike most other chapter-length parts of the Shifa\u2019, not easily associated with any one locus in Aristotle.\r\n\r\nBoth Avicenna and Simplicius, moreover, introduce terminology\u2014\u201ccorporeal form,\u201d \u201cindeterminate dimensions,\u201d \u201cdeviation\u201d\u2014that is neither Aristotelian nor even Plotinian. The conceptual radicalness can be summed up by saying that both of these solutions reduce corporeity, in the relevant sense, to something extremely abstract. Both refuse to identify it with any of the familiar and easily picturable properties of bodies (extension, volume, surface, three-dimensionality, rigidity, resistance, inertia, weight).\r\n\r\nThis resort to a high degree of conceptual abstraction and interpretative independence reflects both the extreme difficulty of the metaphysical problems and the strong pressure to achieve systematically maintainable solutions where such fundamental issues are at stake. The two solutions agree to a great extent in detail.\r\n\r\nThe abstract property with which both Simplicius and Avicenna wish to identify corporeity is divisibility or partibility: the potency or aptitude by which a material substance, one in actu, is at the same time potentially many. The difference between them is subtle. Avicenna thinks of corporeity, roughly speaking, as the kind of unity (ultimately: substantial unity) that possesses such divisibility. He therefore identifies corporeity with a certain substantial form.\r\n\r\nSimplicius, on the other hand, thinks of corporeity as the privation by which an enmattered substantial form \u201cdeviates\u201d from its intelligible archetype\u2014i.e., by which it deviates from true unity and true being. He therefore identifies corporeity with matter.\r\n\r\nBoth solutions are relatively tenable within their own systematic contexts; neither, however, could likely survive transplantation to the other system. Simplicius\u2019 solution ultimately relies on a full-blown Neoplatonic theory of emanation that Avicenna does not share, while Avicenna\u2019s depends on his non-Neoplatonic views about essential and accidental properties and about the coexistence of multiple substantial forms in a single composite substance.\r\n[conclusion p. 113-114]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GJWf1yj79pw3EdQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":409,"full_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":483,"full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1425,"section_of":1452,"pages":"73-130","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1452,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aspects of Avicenna","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The articles in this volume aim to further our understanding of the work and thought of the philosopher and physician Ab\u016b \u02bfAl\u012b al-\u1e24usain ibn \u02bfAbd All\u0101h ibn S\u012bn\u0101 (born before 370 AH\/980 CE-died 428 AH\/1037 CE), known in the West by his Latinized name Avicenna. \r\nIt seems to me that what much of the best new schlorahip has in common, and what the articles in this volume aspire to, is a mature and subtle appreciation of the history of Avicenna\u2019s philosophy. By this I mean two things. First, the increasing availability of edited Avicennian texts has allowed scholars to examine a broader spectrum of passages about particular topic than they were able to in the past. This, in turn, has made possible the recent and ongoing attempts to periodize Avicenna\u2019s philosophical career through the careful dating of individual work. Scholars now have to come to terms with the fact that there may not be a single Avicennian position on a given issue, but rather a history of positions, adopted at different periods of his life. \r\nSecond, many of the ancient commentaries on Aristotle, though available in the original Greek for a hundred years now, have only recently been translated into English. These translations, along with the new scholarly work on the commentators which has followed in their wake, have made a massive but heretofore forbidden resource for the history of late-antique and early-medieval philosophy easily accessible to speciallists in Arabic philosophy. The more precisely we understand how Greek philosophy developed durig the period between 200 CE and 600 CE, the better able we shall be to situate the theories of philosophers such as Avicenny in their intellectual-historical context. [introduction\/conclusion]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wL5bMZgjyTXYzBp","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1452,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Markus Wiener Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1425,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Princeton papers, interdisciplinary journal of Middle Eastern studies","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"73-130"}},"sort":[2001]}

Aspects of Avicenna, 2001
By: Wisnovsky, Robert (Ed.)

Title	Aspects of Avicenna
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2001
Publication Place	Princeton
Publisher	Markus Wiener Publishers
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Wisnovsky, Robert
Translator(s)

The articles in this volume aim to further our understanding of the work and thought of the philosopher and physician Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusain ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā (born before 370 AH/980 CE-died 428 AH/1037 CE), known in the West by his Latinized name Avicenna. It seems to me that what much of the best new schlorahip has in common, and what the articles in this volume aspire to, is a mature and subtle appreciation of the history of Avicenna’s philosophy. By this I mean two things. First, the increasing availability of edited Avicennian texts has allowed scholars to examine a broader spectrum of passages about particular topic than they were able to in the past. This, in turn, has made possible the recent and ongoing attempts to periodize Avicenna’s philosophical career through the careful dating of individual work. Scholars now have to come to terms with the fact that there may not be a single Avicennian position on a given issue, but rather a history of positions, adopted at different periods of his life. Second, many of the ancient commentaries on Aristotle, though available in the original Greek for a hundred years now, have only recently been translated into English. These translations, along with the new scholarly work on the commentators which has followed in their wake, have made a massive but heretofore forbidden resource for the history of late-antique and early-medieval philosophy easily accessible to speciallists in Arabic philosophy. The more precisely we understand how Greek philosophy developed durig the period between 200 CE and 600 CE, the better able we shall be to situate the theories of philosophers such as Avicenny in their intellectual-historical context. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/e2BTuHZnaMPhPvO

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1452","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1452,"authors_free":[{"id":2450,"entry_id":1452,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":483,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","free_first_name":"Robert","free_last_name":"Wisnovsky","norm_person":{"id":483,"first_name":"Robert","last_name":"Wisnovsky","full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aspects of Avicenna","main_title":{"title":"Aspects of Avicenna"},"abstract":"The articles in this volume aim to further our understanding of the work and thought of the philosopher and physician Ab\u016b \u02bfAl\u012b al-\u1e24usain ibn \u02bfAbd All\u0101h ibn S\u012bn\u0101 (born before 370 AH\/980 CE-died 428 AH\/1037 CE), known in the West by his Latinized name Avicenna. \r\nIt seems to me that what much of the best new schlorahip has in common, and what the articles in this volume aspire to, is a mature and subtle appreciation of the history of Avicenna\u2019s philosophy. By this I mean two things. First, the increasing availability of edited Avicennian texts has allowed scholars to examine a broader spectrum of passages about particular topic than they were able to in the past. This, in turn, has made possible the recent and ongoing attempts to periodize Avicenna\u2019s philosophical career through the careful dating of individual work. Scholars now have to come to terms with the fact that there may not be a single Avicennian position on a given issue, but rather a history of positions, adopted at different periods of his life. \r\nSecond, many of the ancient commentaries on Aristotle, though available in the original Greek for a hundred years now, have only recently been translated into English. These translations, along with the new scholarly work on the commentators which has followed in their wake, have made a massive but heretofore forbidden resource for the history of late-antique and early-medieval philosophy easily accessible to speciallists in Arabic philosophy. The more precisely we understand how Greek philosophy developed durig the period between 200 CE and 600 CE, the better able we shall be to situate the theories of philosophers such as Avicenny in their intellectual-historical context. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":4,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/e2BTuHZnaMPhPvO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":483,"full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1452,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Markus Wiener Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2001]}

Review of: Dorotheus, Guilelmus (trans.), Simplicius Commentarium in decem Categorias Aristotelis (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Versiones Latinae temporis resuscitatarum litterarum, Bd. 8), 2001
By: Summerell, Orrin Finn

Title	Review of: Dorotheus, Guilelmus (trans.), Simplicius Commentarium in decem Categorias Aristotelis (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Versiones Latinae temporis resuscitatarum litterarum, Bd. 8)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Bochumer philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter
Volume	5
Issue	1
Pages	262-263
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Summerell, Orrin Finn
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lxHRful4FTiSy2L

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1476","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1476,"authors_free":[{"id":2557,"entry_id":1476,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":546,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Summerell, Orrin Finn","free_first_name":"Orrin Finn","free_last_name":"Summerell","norm_person":{"id":546,"first_name":"Orrin Finn","last_name":"Summerell","full_name":"Summerell, Orrin Finn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142836877","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Dorotheus, Guilelmus (trans.), Simplicius Commentarium in decem Categorias Aristotelis (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Versiones Latinae temporis resuscitatarum litterarum, Bd. 8)","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Dorotheus, Guilelmus (trans.), Simplicius Commentarium in decem Categorias Aristotelis (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Versiones Latinae temporis resuscitatarum litterarum, Bd. 8)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lxHRful4FTiSy2L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":546,"full_name":"Summerell, Orrin Finn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1476,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bochumer philosophisches Jahrbuch f\u00fcr Antike und Mittelalter","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"262-263"}},"sort":[2001]}

PAGE 1 OF 1

“Creatio ex nihilo”: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages, 2012
By: Gleede, Benjamin

Title	“Creatio ex nihilo”: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume	22
Pages	91-117
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gleede, Benjamin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato’s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle’s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-Fārābī in his exposition of Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Q6zkHx0QhaNpLZ6

"Simplikios", 2001
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Schneider, Helmuth (Ed.), Cancik, Hubert (Ed.)

Title	"Simplikios"
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike
Pages	578-580
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Schneider, Helmuth , Cancik, Hubert
Translator(s)

Ein kurzer Eintrag Eintrag über Simplikios in "Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike".

Online Resources

A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, 2006
By: Gill, Mary Louise (Ed.), Pellegrin, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	A Companion to Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Malden – Oxford - Victoria
Publisher	Blackwell Publishers
Series	Blackwell Companions to Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre
Translator(s)

A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.
Comprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy
Integrates analytic and continental traditions
Explores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy
Includes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL

A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus, 2001
By: Yavetz, Ido

Title	A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Volume	56
Issue	1
Pages	69-93
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Yavetz, Ido
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The geometry of the alternative reconstruction of Eudoxan planetary theory is studied. It is 
shown that in this framework the hippopede acquires an analytical role, consolidating the theory's geometrical underpinnings. This removes the main point of incompatibility between the alternative reconstruction and Simplicius's account of Eudoxan planetary astronomy. The analysis also suggests a compass and straight-edge procedure for drawing a point by point outline of the retrograde loop created by any given arrangement of the three inner spheres. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AL92XR05kicTihW

A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher, 2016
By: Roueché, Mossman, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	541-564
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Roueché, Mossman
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N5kDdYi5KDU6EBg

A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11), 2013
By: Minunno, Giuseppe, Loretz, Oswald (Ed.), Ribichini, Sergio (Ed.), Watson, Wilfred G. E. (Ed.), Zamora, José Antonio (Ed.)

Title	A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2013
Published in	Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella
Pages	553-560
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Minunno, Giuseppe
Editor(s)	Loretz, Oswald , Ribichini, Sergio , Watson, Wilfred G. E. , Zamora, José Antonio
Translator(s)

Aristotle’s meagre reference does not indicate either who these heroes were or the reason for sleeping near them, but some more information on the matter is provided by commentators on Aristotle. While Temistius’ commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle’s text, Philoponus claims that these persons were sick people who went and slept near the heroes. He also claims that, after having slept for five days uninterruptedly, they recovered. Simplicius believes that people slept near the heroes ὀνείρων ἕνεκεν ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς χρείας; furthermore, he asserts that the heroes mentioned by Aristotle were the nine sons whom Herakles begot by the daughters of Thespios. They died in Sardinia, where their corpses remained uncorrupted and intact, giving them the appearance of sleepers (φαντασίαν καθευδόντων παρεχόμενα).

Tertullian, also, makes a reference to Aristotle who, according to him, mentioned incubatores of the sanctuary (fanum) of a Sardinian hero having the power to deprive them of dreams (visionibus privantem). [introduction p. 553-554]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT

Title	Abū l-ʿAbbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von Rüdiger Arnzen
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2002
Publication Place	Köln – Essen
Publisher	Rüdiger Arnzen
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger , Nairīzī, al-Faḍl Ibn-Ḥātim an-
Editor(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IUWXMfOVCLrlpvs

Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy , 2014
By: Silva, José Filipe (Ed.)

Title	Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	Springer
Series	Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind
Volume	14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Silva, José Filipe
Translator(s)

The aim of the present work is to show the roots of the conception of perception as an active process, tracing the history of its development from Plato to modern philosophy. The contributors inquire into what activity is taken to mean in different theories, challenging traditional historical accounts of perception that stress the passivity of percipients in coming to know the external world. Special attention is paid to the psychological and physiological mechanisms of perception, rational and non-rational perception and the role of awareness in the perceptual process. Perception has often been conceived as a process in which the passive aspects - such as the reception of sensory stimuli - were stressed and the active ones overlooked. However, during recent decades research in cognitive science and philosophy of mind has emphasized the activity of the subject in the process of sense perception, often associating this activity to the notions of attention and intentionality. Although it is recognized that there are ancient roots to the view that perception is fundamentally active, the history remains largely unexplored. The book is directed to all those interested in contemporary debates in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology who would like to become acquainted with the historical background of active perception, but for historical reliability the aim is to make no compromises. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Addenda Eudemea, 2006
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	Addenda Eudemea
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2006
Journal	Leeds International Classical Studies
Volume	5
Issue	1
Pages	1-28
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This  paper  presents  16  fragments  of  the  Peripatetic  philosopher  Eudemus  (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised  1969),  but  which  had  been  signalled  in  passing  by  De  Lacy  (1957)  and  Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these  passages.  Their  importance  lies  in  bringing  greater  comprehensiveness  to  the  collection,  offering  at  least  five  additional  (near)  quotations,  and  illustrating  the  new  trend  in  fragment  studies  to  contextualize  fragments  on  several  levels  in  order  to  gain  further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HRE0ldIrfqIxrEE

Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish), 2009
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc, Narbonne, Jean-Marc (Ed.), Poirier, Paul-Hubert (Ed.)

Title	Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2009
Published in	Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot
Pages	97-100
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Editor(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert
Translator(s)

This text is an addendum to the book Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8) p. 109. It explores Plotinus‘ concept of substance and non-substance, good and evil, and the principle of better and worse things. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ahDdnxIxJ6Y3VGD

Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion, 2014
By: Lawrence, Marilynn, Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.), Tarrant, Harold (Ed.)

Title	Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	The Neoplatonic Socrates
Pages	127-142
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lawrence, Marilynn
Editor(s)	Layne, Danielle A. , Tarrant, Harold
Translator(s)

This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hnBeShzJI9WChDr

Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?, 2008
By: Chase, Michael

Title	Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2008
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Or, ce schéma de dérivation géométrique joue un rôle assez important dans la pensée d'Albert, qui l'attribue à Platon. Cette attribution ne semble pas si farfelue que cela, même si la dérivation des formes géométriques à partir du flux du point semble provenir de Speusippe plutôt que de son oncle Platon. Il n'en reste pas moins que, du moins selon l'interprétation de l'École de Tübingen, le schéma de dérivation point/nombre-ligne-surface-corps est d'une importance tout à fait fondamentale pour l'ontologie ésotérique de Platon.

Sans accès aux Dialogues de Platon, Albert le Grand finit donc, quelles qu'aient été ses sources prochaines et lointaines pour les doctrines platoniciennes, par défendre une image de Platon qui correspond, dans une large mesure, à celle de l'École de Tübingen.

Quant à la question de ses sources et de la voie de transmission de ces doctrines, Albert a pu trouver chez la plus importante d'entre elles — la pensée d'Avicenne — de quoi nourrir une réflexion approfondie sur cette question de la dérivation des formes géométriques. Cependant, le commentaire d'Albert aux Éléments d'Euclide montre qu'à cette influence avicennienne est venue s'ajouter une autre, indépendante : la doctrine géométrique de Simplicius, véhiculée par la traduction latine du commentaire euclidien d'al-Nairīzī.

Qu'en est-il de la relation entre Simplicius et Avicenne ? Nous avons vu que certains éléments du schéma simplicien de la dérivation des formes géométriques se retrouvent déjà dans l'École de Bagdad, autour de Yaḥyā ibn ‘Adī. G. Freudenthal, pour sa part, avait conclu de son étude de la géométrie d'al-Fārābī qu'« il est fort probable qu'al-Fārābī connaissait soit les ouvrages de Simplicius auxquels an-Nairīzī avait accès, soit seulement la brève citation [p. 2, 19-23 Curze] contenue dans le commentaire d'an-Nairīzī ».

Quoi qu'il en soit, il semble difficile d'éviter la conclusion qu'Avicenne connaissait bien la doctrine géométrique de Simplicius, du moins telle que transmise par le commentaire d'al-Nairīzī, soit par l'intermédiaire de l'École de Bagdad, soit par ses lectures propres.

De Platon à Speusippe, en passant par des sources hellénistiques telles que Sextus Empiricus, la doctrine de la dérivation des formes géométriques a fini, au VIe siècle apr. J.-C., par faire partie intégrante du bagage intellectuel des derniers néoplatoniciens tels que Philopon et Simplicius.

C'est, semble-t-il, la pensée géométrique de ce dernier qui, traduite en arabe et préservée dans le commentaire euclidien d'al-Nairīzī, contribue à former la pensée d'Avicenne au premier quart du XIe siècle, avant d'arriver, quelque deux siècles plus tard, sous les yeux de ce lecteur omnivore qu'était Albert le Grand.

Pour expliquer cet itinéraire de la pensée, il n'est sans doute pas nécessaire de postuler que, comme le soutient Mme Hadot, Simplicius ait rédigé son Commentaire d'Euclide à Harran. Mais rien n'exclut cette hypothèse non plus, et quand on pense aux éléments de preuve rassemblés par Mme Hadot et d'autres concernant l'importance du legs de l'École mathématique de Simplicius dans le monde arabe, on peut estimer que le cas du schéma de la dérivation des formes géométriques à partir du point ne fait qu'ajouter une brique de plus à l'édifice des preuves témoignant en faveur de l'hypothèse de l'« École néoplatonicienne de Harran ». [conclusion p. 28-29]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mVjTC4EIjO2Aggg

Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro, 2004
By: Rescigno, Andrea (Ed.), Alexander Aphrodisiensis,

Title	Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2004
Publication Place	Amsterdam
Publisher	Hakkert
Series	Supplementi di Lexis
Volume	26
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Alexander Aphrodisiensis
Editor(s)	Rescigno, Andrea
Translator(s)	Rescigno, Andrea(Rescigno, Andrea)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tu72sBCDmGrvNf3

Alexander on Physics 2.9, 2012
By: Sharples, Robert W.

Title	Alexander on Physics 2.9
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume	55
Issue	1
Pages	19-30
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius’s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included—and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus’s commentary thereon, and with Alexander’s discussion in some of the Quaestiones; the present paper, with Simplicius’s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9. Alexander’s GC commentary and the relevant part of his Physics commentary are lost. The text that will chiefly concern us is (3) (2) in the appendix, where Simplicius says:

    "For my part, I do not understand why Alexander says that unqualified necessity excludes what is for the sake of something."

Perhaps indeed he does understand why Alexander says this, and this is a disingenuous way of introducing a problem; but the problem may be real nonetheless.

If my story has a moral, it is, I suppose, that those who have an interest in Alexander should be more proactive than I confess I have myself been in looking up the later commentaries on passages of Aristotle that are of interest in the context of Alexander, in order to see whether Alexander is recorded as having had interesting comments to make. Or, if that is a counsel of perfection, I think it shows that we need a collection of the reports of Alexander by name in later Greek commentaries on the Physics, rather like Andrea Rescigno’s recent edition of the fragments of the De Caelo commentary. We already have the fragments of the Physics commentary preserved in Arabic, and the fragments in Greek identified by Marwan Rashed; there may be scope, if copyright and other issues can be overcome, for a compendium assembling all this material in the order of the passages of Aristotle commented upon. This would indeed in a way be assistance for the lazy, making nothing available that individual scholars could not find for themselves in published sources, but it might be useful nonetheless.

In Physics 2.9, Aristotle continues his polemic against those who explain nature in terms of necessitating material interactions, arguing that necessity is present in all things that have goal-directedness, if I may so translate “the for-the-sake-of-something,” but that the necessity of matter is not the cause or explanation of what comes about. There is, by the way, in my view a systematic ambiguity in the terminology commonly used here; necessity can be conditional either on a future goal or on some past event, but the custom has developed of using “conditional” or “hypothetical” necessity to indicate that which relates to the future, “absolute” to indicate that which is conditional on past events—presumably because there is no longer anything hypothetical about these. But, especially in the ancient Peripatetic context where, as Patzig pointed out, qualifications attach to predicates rather than to whole propositions, this could be misleading from the point of view of logical analysis.

Building a house necessarily requires bricks; but the fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. (It could be an explanation of why you have a brick house, or more strictly of why, given that you have a house, it is a brick one; but that is a different point.) To be sure, Aristotle’s argument in 2.9 is open to challenge in that he takes his examples from human goal-directed activity, and the extrapolation from these to natural processes is open to question. David Sedley well suggests that the self-building wall may be a parody of atomist cosmogony. A human being requires human flesh and human bones; but, Aristotle’s view would seem to imply, human flesh does not self-assemble into a human being—perhaps because it cannot even be human flesh, except homonymously, if it is not part of a human being. There are well-known problems here about how the final cause of embryonic development can also be the efficient cause, but I do not propose to pursue them now.

For, more important in the present context, is a distinction indicated by the example I have just used. The fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. Why not? Well, presumably, because sitting looking at the pile of bricks will not give you a house; you, or the builder, need to do something with them. Bricks not only do not explain the coming-to-be of a brick house (let us call this “thesis A”); they do not necessarily lead to it, either (let us call this “thesis B”). In more formal language, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For the Presocratic natural philosophers whom Aristotle is attacking, on the other hand, material interactions are both sufficient conditions for, and explanations of, natural phenomena.

Normally, an explanation will be a sufficient condition, or at least that one of a number of jointly sufficient conditions that is relevant in the explanatory context. Consequently, to say that material actions may necessitate, i.e., may be sufficient for, but may not explain, some event, or in the contexts with which we are concerned the coming-to-be of something, is to raise the specter of over-determination. If natural comings-to-be are necessitated by matter and its interactions—what some call “absolute” necessity—is there any room left in which to argue that they are explained by the purposes or goals for which they are necessary means?
[introduction p. 19-20]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RKYRiSGUGVV8cTg

Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne, 2017
By: Balansard, Anne (Ed.), Jaulin, Annick (Ed.)

Title	Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2017
Publication Place	Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT
Publisher	Peeters
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick
Translator(s)

Les neuf études de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire à la Métaphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, écrit au tournant des IIe et IIIe siècles. Elles ont été suscitées par le colloque international "Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotélicienne", tenu à l'Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la réception est au cœur de ces études : réception de la Métaphysique par Alexandre, réception de son exégèse par la tradition ultérieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre établit la compréhension du texte d'Aristote à partir du IIIe siècle ; il servira de référence à toutes les interprétations ultérieures, qu'elles soient néoplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces études mettent en évidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie première et même éthique, établis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disputée est celle de l'usage des Catégories dans le commentaire à la Métaphysique. Les neuf études ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH

Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Balansard, Anne (Ed.), Jaulin, Annick (Ed.)

Title	Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne
Pages	217-235
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick
Translator(s)

Les commentaires aristotéliciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le traité Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement différents si l’exégète néoplatonicien n’avait pas eu accès aux commentaires d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre « l’étudiant le plus attentif d’Aristote » et ses abondantes références aux explications de l’exégète péripatéticien montrent de manière éloquente que les commentaires de ce dernier étaient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d’expliquer plusieurs difficultés du texte d’Aristote, exception faite des cas où Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-même) Platon. Dans l’un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprimée :

    Je crois qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle manière, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes péripatéticiens, les discours d’Aristote. Pourtant, à propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu’il ne respecte plus le but de l’antilogie d’Aristote, but qui vise l’apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte à Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu’il n’essaie pas uniquement de réfuter, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l’a précisément fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fréquemment même pas le sens apparent de son discours.

Par l’emploi de l’adverbe κακοσχόλως («malicieusement», «avec perfidie»), Simplicius suggère à ses lecteurs qu’Alexandre connaissait en réalité le vrai objectif des critiques d’Aristote, qu’il a pourtant caché à ses propres lecteurs à cause de son appartenance à une secte philosophique, à savoir celle des Péripatéticiens. Les critiques d’Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci pédagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en œuvre pour protéger les âmes philosophantes des contresens qu’elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compréhensibles.

Les critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l’âme, comme dans le passage précédemment cité, où Aristote, selon l’interprétation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre à une critique apparente du Timée 36e2-4 :

    « [L’âme], tissée à travers le ciel, du centre à l’extrémité […] commença une vie perpétuelle et raisonnable » (ἡ δὲ ἐκ μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν πάσῃ διεκλακεῖσα […] ἤρξατο ἀθανάτου καὶ φρονίμου βίου).

Si Aristote a ainsi critiqué Platon, c’est pour que les philosophes débutants ne pensent pas, à cause de l’usage en réalité métaphorique du participe διεκλακεῖσα («tissée»), que l’âme du monde, matériellement présente dans le corps céleste, le contraigne à se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux conséquences non voulues :

    Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel,
    Que l’âme, exerçant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse.

La critique d’Aristote concerne aussi la thèse, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut « engendré » (γενητός) dans le temps, thèse qu’Aristote attribue à Platon seulement à un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degré de connaissance des âmes philosophantes. Ces dernières n’arrivent pas encore à saisir le sens de γενητός comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Timée, à ce qui n’est pas « auto-constituant » (αὐτοσύστατον), mais qui reçoit son existence d’une autre réalité, aussi sous un mode intemporel.

Du point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de préliminaire une fausse interprétation de Platon, afin que les étudiants ne soient pas amenés à croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Timée, à la création du monde.

Les critiques que Simplicius adresse à Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au traité Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire à la Physique, sont toutes liées au fait que l’Aphrodisien interprète Aristote à la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le problème philosophique que nous nous proposons d’examiner ici, à savoir celui de savoir si l’univers a une cause efficiente ou non.
[introduction p. 217-219]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik

Title	Alexandre d’Aphrodise, commentaire perdu à la « Physique » d’Aristote (livres IV−VIII) : les scholies byzantines. Édition, traduction et commentaire
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2011
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan , Alexander Aphrodisiensis
Editor(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Translator(s)

The no longer extant commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias (approx. 200 AD) on Aristotle’s Physics is one of the most important works of antiquity ‑, as a source text having influenced both the Greek commentators on Aristotle and ‒ through the mediation of Arab scholars ‑ Western medieval philosophy. This volume presents the first edition and study of nearly 700 recently discovered Byzantine scholia, which allow a more exact reconstruction of Alexander’s teachings on physics, and at the same time contribute to a better understanding of Aristotelianism and preclassical physics. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7D2ncBfgdXVfziU

Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile, 2002
By: Kukkonen, Taneli

Title	Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Vivarium
Volume	40
Issue	2
Pages	137-173
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Kukkonen, Taneli
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's rationale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments "through the impossible"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers offered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. We shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of Aristotle's intentions slowly emerged. Whether this picture accurately represents Aristotle is arguable. Because the cited examples arose in connection with some of Aristotle's universally held natural principles, the discussion was seen to tie in with cosmological issues of central importance. The various solutions put forward therefore serve to reveal what the discussants took to be the limits to the world's conceptualization. It is not quite a case of assessing "possible worlds"; this systematic notion only enters the discussion in the early 14th century. Rather, what is at stake is what the possible features of the one and only world are. [p. 141]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j1e9HSV2wsOobQn

An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine, 2016
By: Opsomer, Jan, Falcon, Andrea (Ed.)

Title	An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity
Pages	341-357
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Translator(s)

Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of
Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy
as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These
innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi
cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new
metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy
and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli
gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more
over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon
of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo
sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging
to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own
construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer
tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon.
Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra
dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival
Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound
study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them
within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward,
Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans,
who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas
were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted
different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating
them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aCdD22AdndA4ijA

Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity, 2016
By: Panayiotis Tzamalikos

Title	Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte
Volume	128
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Panayiotis Tzamalikos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Origen has been always studied as a theologian and too much credit has been given to Eusebius’ implausible hagiography of him. This book explores who Origen really was, by pondering into his philosophical background, which determines his theological exposition implicitly, yet decisively. For this background to come to light, it took a ground-breaking exposition of Anaxagoras’ philosophy and its legacy to Classical and Late Antiquity, assessing critically Aristotle’s distorted representation of Anaxagoras. Origen, formerly a Greek philosopher of note, whom Proclus styled an anti-Platonist, is placed in the history of philosophy for the first time. By drawing on his Anaxagorean background, and being the first to revive the Anaxagorean Theory of Logoi, he paved the way to Nicaea. He was an anti-Platonist because he was an Anaxagorean philosopher with far-reaching influence, also on Neoplatonists such as Porphyry. His theology made an impact not only on the Cappadocians, but also on later Christian authors. His theory of the soul, now expounded in the light of his philosophical background, turns out more orthodox than that of some Christian stars of the Byzantine imperial orthodoxy. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus, 2003
By: Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2003
Publication Place	University of London
Publisher	Institute of Classical Studies
Series	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume	46, Supplement 78
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UsvEmjeEeL17itA

Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception, 2023
By: Muzala, Melina (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2023
Publication Place	Berlin/Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Topics in Ancient Philosophy/ Themen der antiken Philosophie
Volume	10
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Muzala, Melina
Translator(s)

The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl

Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle's De anima, 2009
By: Destrée, Pierre (Ed.), Van Riel, Gerd (Ed.), Crawford, Cyril K. (Ed.), Van Campe, Leen (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle's De anima
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy
Volume	I 41
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Destrée, Pierre , Van Riel, Gerd , Crawford, Cyril K. , Van Campe, Leen
Translator(s)

Aristotle's treatise "On the Soul" figures among the most influential texts in the intellectual history of the West. It is the first systematic treatise on the nature and functioning of the human soul, presenting Aristotle's authoritative analyses of, among others, sense perception, imagination, memory, and intellect. The ongoing debates on this difficult work continue the commentary tradition that dates back to antiquity. This volume offers a selection of papers by distinguished scholars, exploring the ancient perspectives on Aristotle's "De anima", from Aristotle's earliest successors through the Aristotelian Commentators at the end of Antiquity. It constitutes a twin publication with a volume entitled "Medieval Perspectives on Aristotle's "De anima"" [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1vWVivBFKYUW50b

Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition, 2006
By: Mejer, Jørgen, Gill, Mary Louise (Ed.), Pellegrin, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	A Companion to Ancient Philosophy
Pages	20-33
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mejer, Jørgen
Editor(s)	Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre
Translator(s)

Most of the other philosophical Lives from late antiquity are written in the context 
of the Platonic philosophy: Apuleius wrote a book on Plato and his philosophy in the 
second century ce, and a hundred years later both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote 
biographies of Pythagoras, but they are all three more of value as a source to the times 
of their authors than as a source to the subject of their biographies. Porphyry’s life 
of Pythagoras  was  part  of his  Historia Philosopha,  on  the  history  of philosophy in 
four books up to and culminating in Plato. More important is the fact that we have 
biographies of some Neoplatonic philosophers written by their students: Porphyry not 
only collected and edited Plotinus’ writings at the end of the third century ce, he also 
wrote a vivid description of Plotinus’ life as he knew it from his own time with the 
Neoplatonic philosopher in Rome.3 Two hundred years later Marinus wrote a life of 
Proclus who was head of the Academy in Athens in the fifth century ce, and early in 
the  sixth  century  Damascius  wrote  a  Historia Philosopha  (previously  called  Life of 
Isidorus),  which  covers  the  last  couple  of generations  of Platonic  philosophers  in 
Athens. Since we have so many writings by the Neoplatonic philosophers themselves, 
the significance of these biographies is not what they have to tell us about the thoughts 
of these Neoplatonists, but their description of the philosophical activities in Athens. 
Taken together with the numerous commentaries on works of Plato and Aristotle, 
they offer important information about the institutional aspects of doing philosophy in 
late antiquity, and much remains to be done in this area.4 It is no coincidence that 
Simplicius and many others in this period were capable of composing commentaries 
that are still important both for our understanding of the texts they comment on and 
for our knowledge of Greek philosophy. [Conclusion, p. 33]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xN3C25WHUYQeLn0

Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo, 2015
By: Delcomminette, Sylvain (Ed.), Hoine, Pieter d’ (Ed.), Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.)

Title	Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia antiqua
Volume	140
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Translator(s)

Plato’s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.
This volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo’s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM

Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire, 2018
By: Menn, Stephen

Title	Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2018
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	29
Pages	13-43
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to  reconstruct much  of Porphyry’s  greater  Categories commentary  (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to  a lesser  extent Andronicus,  on the Categories. In  some cases 
building on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander’s  and Porphyry’s responses.  I  reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how 
a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or  Stoic 
XeKid, and the  consequences he draws for the different aims  of the  Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the 
form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it 
is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses.  In  some  cases  Porphyry  constructs  his  views  by  triangulating  between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QBnyRLAL62sCzX0

Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist, 2018
By: Busche, Hubertus (Ed.), Perkams, Matthias (Ed.)

Title	Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2018
Publication Place	Hamburg
Publisher	Felix Meiner Verlag
Series	Philosophische Bibliothek
Volume	694
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Busche, Hubertus , Perkams, Matthias
Translator(s)

Im Einzelnen enthält der Band die Deutungen von Theophrast (4. Jh. v. Chr.), Alexander von Aphrodisias (De anima und De intellectu [umstritten]; um 200), Themistios (4. Jh.), Johannes Philoponos, Priskian (Theophrast-Metaphrase), Pseudo-Simplikios, d.h. Priskian aus Lydien (De-anima-Kommentar; alle nach 500) und Pseudo-Philoponos, d.h. Stephanos von Alexandria (um 550). Da sich diese Kommentatoren nicht selten auf frühere Ausleger beziehen, wurde die Zusammenstellung um weitere wichtige Zeugnisse ergänzt, z. B. zur Aristoteles-Deutung des Xenokrates sowie eines Anonymus des 2. Jahrhunderts. Zwei allgemeine Einführungstexte der Herausgeber informieren über die systematischen Probleme der Auslegung von De anima III 4-5 sowie über die antike Auslegungsgeschichte dieses Textes. Spezielle Einleitungen zu den acht Interpretationen informieren über Leben und Werk ihrer Autoren sowie über die Besonderheiten ihrer Interpretation. Die Anmerkungen in den Anhängen geben weitere gedankliche, sachliche oder historische Erläuterungen zu einzelnen Textstellen. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy, 2006
By: Ackeren, Marcel van (Ed.), Müller, Jörn (Ed.)

Title	Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2006
Publication Place	Darmstadt
Publisher	Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Ackeren, Marcel van , Müller, Jörn
Translator(s)

Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkarätig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verständnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster für den modernen Leser und erläutern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen können. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche Übersetzungsprobleme können auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente überhaupt überliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung älterer Texte, die für ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das für viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HHFDfWDciwoyh50

Aperçu de la réception de la doctrine stoïcienne du mélange total dans le néoplatonisme après Plotin, 2007
By: Cohen, Daniel

Title	Aperçu de la réception de la doctrine stoïcienne du mélange total dans le néoplatonisme après Plotin
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	25
Issue	2
Pages	67-100
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Cohen, Daniel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aux niveaux les plus inférieurs, où prédomine la multiplicité et la division, le mélange peut se manifester selon deux modes :

    Ou bien les composants d'une totalité préservent leur identité au détriment de l'unité du produit du mélange (il ne s'agit alors pas à proprement parler d'un mélange mais plutôt d'un « assemblage » dans lequel les éléments sont simplement juxtaposés : il s'agit plutôt de la παράθεσις stoïcienne ou de la σύνθεσις d'Aristote).
    Ou bien le produit du mélange forme une véritable totalité unifiée, mais alors cette unité est réalisée au détriment de l'identité des composantes, qui s'altèrent et se confondent pour former une entité nouvelle (il s'agit alors de la σύγχυσις stoïcienne ou du véritable mélange au sens aristotélicien).

Au niveau des réalités immatérielles, c'est sur le modèle stoïcien du mélange total que les Néoplatoniciens envisagent cette paradoxale « fusion sans confusion » qui unifie toute multiplicité sur le mode de la totalité antérieure à la dispersion de ses parties au sein de la matière.

Dans la mesure où les jugements que les Néoplatoniciens portent sur l'héritage philosophique des doctrines anciennes se présentent la plupart du temps comme une confrontation avec la perspective qui est supposée être celle de Platon, on peut dire que la réception néoplatonicienne des physiques du mélange d'Aristote et des Stoïciens aboutit à la conclusion suivante :

    Les Stoïciens se trompent parce qu'ils rendent les causes immanentes et donc mélangées à la matière.
    Aristote a raison, mais il se limite à rendre compte des phénomènes sensibles.

Aristote et les Stoïciens font partie de ce que Proclus qualifiera de « crème des disputeurs qui, pour avoir observé quelque petite portion de la nature, pensent pouvoir déchirer Platon ».

Ce n'est donc pas le moindre des paradoxes si les représentants du Néoplatonisme, après avoir rejeté les lois de la physique aristotélicienne comme n'ayant de validité qu'au seul niveau sensible, et après avoir vigoureusement critiqué le matérialisme stoïcien, ont transposé la donnée la plus fondamentale de la physique stoïcienne — celle qui permettait aux Stoïciens de justifier l'immanence intégrale de la causalité divine (et donc le matérialisme corporaliste le plus radical) — aux niveaux les plus élevés, comme régissant les relations entre les réalités immatérielles et incorporelles.

Comme l'a bien montré Pierre Hadot, cette transfiguration doctrinale, qui deviendra typique de la démarche néoplatonicienne, a été amorcée dans le cadre de la synthèse réalisée par Porphyre. En ce sens, écrivait-il, « c'est précisément une des caractéristiques de la doctrine porphyrienne (...) de montrer que le Stoïcisme n'est vrai que dans la transposition néoplatonicienne, la physique stoïcienne devenant ainsi une métaphysique », de sorte que « la théorie des mélanges élaborée par les Stoïciens ne découvre sa vérité que sur le plan intelligible ».

Nous avons vu cependant que cette vérité se découvre avant même d'envisager le mélange proprement noétique, Porphyre lui-même ayant déjà fait intervenir la krasis stoïcienne dans le contexte d'un exposé sur l'embryologie, et les Néoplatoniciens ultérieurs dans cet ordre intermédiaire, négligé par Plotin, où se tiennent les « corps immatériels » non qualifiés.

La conception stoïcienne du mélange total s'est finalement imposée au sein de la métaphysique néoplatonicienne au prix d'un double réaménagement doctrinal, ayant eu pour résultat :

    La synthèse de la doctrine stoïcienne de l'interpénétration totale sans confusion avec les élaborations aristotéliciennes de l'acte et de la puissance.
    La transposition du domaine des réalités matérielles à celui des réalités corporelles non encore engagées dans la matière première. [conclusion p. 99-100]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/T9kWS2QRZ2oeq7V

Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien, 2004
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Pierre

Title	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2004
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Librairie générale française
Series	Le livre de poche : références
Volume	603
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epictète, œuvre stoïcienne majeure du IIe siècle de notre ère, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel rédigé trois siècles plus tard par le néoplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces œuvres, de leurs caractéristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'étude de quelques thèmes choisis (la distinction de " ce qui dépend de nous " et de " ce qui ne dépend pas de nous ", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la piété, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et à la mort. Par là, ce livre à deux voix représente aussi et avant tout une méditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activité philosophique dans l'Antiquité ; comme l'écrivent les auteurs : " En utilisant la méthode exégétique, nous avons eu l'intention de répondre à une interrogation, à la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on à philosopher dans l'Antiquité ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de précieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z

Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions – A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory, 2001
By: Boland, Vivian

Title	Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions – A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	New Blackfriars
Volume	82
Issue	968
Pages	467-478
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Boland, Vivian
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Leaving behind moral theology in that sense did not mean his leaving behind a concern with moral questions. On the contrary, he has maintained great interest in developments in fundamental moral theory and in the centrality of morality for all theology. In this, he is faithful to Aquinas who, as Leonard Boyle has argued, envisaged Summa Theologiae as a work in which the moral is central. If, as Kerr himself has been arguing recently, beatitudo is a key to the unity of the Summa, then this is further support for what Boyle argued on historical and palaeographical grounds.

This is not to claim that what Aquinas had in mind was anything like what moral theology came to describe later on, when a strict distinction and even separation of dogma and moral came to prevail, especially in seminary training. Aquinas belongs to an earlier world, from which contemporary moral philosophers continue to learn, in which these later distinctions did not apply. The inherent difficulty in separating them is clear if one tries to answer the question of whether the theology of grace belongs to dogma or to moral.

One of the key areas in which Aquinas continues to contribute to debates in moral philosophy is in relation to virtue-theory. Anglo-Saxon moral philosophy has contributed with distinction to the revival of interest in the notion of virtue, as mentioning the names Anscombe, Foot, and MacIntyre is enough to show. A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since, for him, following Aristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition.

But this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do in this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of habitus or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope, and what Christian tradition calls theological virtues.

It is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e., philosophical as distinct from theological. [introduction p. 467-468]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuaVu4YEsILwhuu

Aquinas and the Platonists, 2002
By: Hankey, Wayne J., Gersh, Stephen (Ed.), Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. (Ed.)

Title	Aquinas and the Platonists
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach
Pages	279-324
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hankey, Wayne J.
Editor(s)	Gersh, Stephen , Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M.
Translator(s)

In fact, Thomas’ own system stands within a tradition whose foundation, as he represents it, he self-consciously opposes. Because his understanding of the Platonic tradition is deeply problematic in many ways, while his knowledge of it is extensive, and because the tradition is itself so complex, Aquinas is frequently (or, better, normally) criticizing one aspect of Platonism from the perspective of another. Such internal criticism is characteristic of Plato’s thought and of its tradition. The ancient Platonists were, however, far better informed about the history of the tradition in which they stood than were their Latin medieval successors. The Platonists of late antiquity, upon whom Thomas depends for much of his understanding of the history of philosophy, did not have the degree of naivete present in the self-opposition that characterizes Thomas’ relation to Platonism.

Getting hold of Thomas’s self-conscious relation to Platonism has been largely accomplished, and many of the tools to complete the task are available. The lexicographical aspect of the work was substantially done almost fifty years ago by R.J. Henle. His Saint Thomas and Platonism: A Study of the Plato and Platonici Texts in the Writings of Saint Thomas is almost complete in terms of the texts it considers. Henle lavishly reproduces the relevant passages in Latin. For the most part, he gives the likely sources of the doctrines attributed to the Platonists with the accuracy possible when he wrote. His analysis, within the parameters he sets and which his perspective sets for him, is thorough and inescapable. Beyond Henle’s work, it is necessary to add the few texts he missed, to correct his work on the basis of better editions than the ones he had available (or used), and to compensate for the limits of his undertaking and his biases.

The principal problems with Henle’s work, once we accept its limits, lie in the vestiges of the neo-Scholastic mentality he retains. This mentality is opposed to that of the historian and was antipathetic to Platonic idealism. On this account, like Aquinas himself, he misses the extent to which Thomas’ representation of Platonism and of his own relation to it actually stands within its long and diverse tradition.

Henle’s work accurately describes how, for Aquinas, a philosophical school is a fixed way of thinking, which results in “a series of like statements formulated in the several minds that teach it and learn it, that write it and read it” (as Mark Jordan puts it). Despite accepting this definition of a “philosophical teaching” from Jordan, as well as his crucial point that Aquinas is not a philosopher whose position is an Aristotelianismus in an Enlightenment or neo-Scholastic manner, I shall continue to write herein both of “Platonism” and of Thomas’ Platonism.

As a matter of fact, for Aquinas, what the Platonici teach has been reduced to a fixed way of thinking, which he treats ahistorically, although he knows much of its history. Further, at several crucial points, he self-consciously sides with them. In rescuing Aquinas from neo-Scholastic representations of his philosophy, Jordan is importantly right that Aquinas did not think of Christians as philosophers. He neglects, however, the continuities that do exist between Scholastic and neo-Scholastic treatments of philosophy. Henle, working within these, through his analysis of the texts in which Thomas speaks of Plato and the Platonici, shows how Platonism is presented as one of these viae.

This via Thomas criticizes, and for most purposes finds the way of Aristotle superior, even if he may accept some of the positions at which the Platonists arrive—positions that also may be reached otherwise. For Thomas, Platonism has a fundamental point of departure, established in Plato’s attempt to save certain knowledge from the consequences of the doctrine of the ancient Physicists (Priores Naturales), with whom he accepts that philosophy began. For him, Plato’s flawed solution to the epistemological problem determines Platonic ontology. The Platonic philosophical position as a whole proceeds according to a distinct method of reasoning to arrive at positions. It is a series of syllogisms whose basic premises are deficient.

In the thirteenth century, only the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Timaeus were available to the Latin West. Henle concluded that Aquinas had no direct knowledge of any of them. Thus, much as with Augustine, he knows only what he takes to be Plato’s doctrines and is without knowledge of the dialogues themselves. Thomas’ approach to philosophy gave him little sympathy for the kind of dialectic by which the fundamentals of philosophy are questioned and reconsidered within and between the dialogues.

The substance of Thomas’ own thinking shows almost no development—except, significantly, in his coming to accept that knowledge involves the formation of a Plotinian-Augustinian inner word in the mind, the verbum mentis. There is certainly no development remotely comparable to that within Plato’s corpus. In consequence, his picture of Plato’s way of thinking is not only lacking in the most basic information but is also without the intellectual necessities for a sympathetic representation.
[introduction p. 1-3]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LajmF4jRGYCVzFn

Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2011
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	5
Issue	1
Pages	85-158
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the συμφωνία in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization:  how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle’s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological  inversion  introduced  by  the  counterfeiter  produces  remarkable  effects  on  the  late  Platonic  doctrine  about  general  terms,  to  the  extent  that  a  commentator  such  as  Simplicius  works  to  reduce  the  dissonance  between   Archytas’ and Aristotle’s words. This paper has three aims:  to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided  by  the  doctrine  of  weight,  which  engenders  a  new  physical  theory  by  Simplicius. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CcW2PJaT6w7pONA

Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy, 2011
By: Longo, Angela (Ed.), Del Forno, Davide (Coll.) (Ed.)

Title	Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2011
Publication Place	Napoli
Publisher	Bibliopolis
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Longo, Angela , Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)
Translator(s)

This volume offers an over-arching study of teh use of hypothetical arguments in ancient philosophy. It may claim to be pioneering inasmuch as it considers texts and authors from the classical period from the Hellenistic age, and from late antiquity. Its order is chronological: from Plato to Damascius. Its approach is plural: there are historico-critical essays and there are pieces of a more theoretical nature; the theoretical parts of the volume aim to explain what sort of thing a hypothesis is, what marks off arguments based upon hypotheses from other arguments, what rules of inference hypothetical argumentation invokes, what a hypothecial argument may hope to achieve, and so on. 
The primary aspiration of the volume is to provide a wide view of a subject which, insofar as it is in itself semwhat technical, tends to attract a nice and narrow inspection. Thus one criterion which contributors have been encouraged to observe is this: the use of hypothetical arguments - or of the "hypothetical method" - should be considered not in isolation but rather in connection with the other dialectical procedures of division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. The volume makes a first step towrds a synthetic account of the use of hypotheses in ancient dialectic.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ABkBQ3CmiH2yDCa

Title	Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)
Translator(s)

In der modernen Universität werden Literatur, Philologie und Philosophie als unterschiedliche Bereiche betrachtet. Damit wird eine im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert zunehmende Entfremdung zwischen der Erforschung antiker Philosophie und Philologie manifest, die den ursprünglichen Gegebenheiten in der Antike keineswegs gerecht wird. Denn die Philosophie entwickelt sich in Griechenland und Rom in enger Verbindung mit und oft in einem Spannungsverhältnis zu unterschiedlichen literarischen Genres. Dies hat zur Folge, dass die Autoren und Interpreten infolge der Wahl bestimmter Gattungen als Medium philosophischer Botschaften neben der eigentlichen Argumentation auch Darstellungsformen der jeweiligen Gattungen zu würdigen haben. Dieses oft spannungsvolle Verhältnis von philosophischem Argument und literarischer Form auszuleuchten hatte sich der 3. Kongress der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie vorgenommen. In Vorträgen und Diskussionsrunden von Philosophen und Philologen wurde diese Frage unter verschiedenen Aspekten mit Blick auf antike Philosophen verschiedener Epochen lebendig diskutiert. Dieser Band, der den Großteil dieser Beiträge versammelt, mag einen Eindruck von der Diskussion vermitteln und Philologen, Philosophen und an der Antike Interessierte zu weiteren Überlegungen anregen. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0QiKNhBCl16gJMn

Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung, 2004
By: Thiel, Rainer

Title	Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2004
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Series	Philosophische Untersuchungen
Volume	11
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Thiel, Rainer
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle's Categories are still widely seen as being incompatible with both Aristotle's later analysis of ousia (in Metaphysics Z) and Plato's ontology. Porphyry's attempt to make sense of this work within a Neoplatonic context is considered, in turn, both as failing to do justice to Aristotle and as directed against Plotinus' purported criticism of Aristotle's Categories . Rainer Thiel shows that the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that go back to Prophyry's reading can be viewed as a valid interpretation of Aristotle which does not contradict Plotinus' view, but in fact can be traced back to him. Plotinus himself does not criticize Aristotle; he does however criticize certain middle-Platonic readings of the Categories. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XddENwtj5FJ59XC

Title	Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2024
Published in	Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit
Pages	191-223
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Boureau, Mai-Lan
Editor(s)	Deckers, Daniel , Brockmann, Christian , Valente, Stefano
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NqVyPiLS6En2pMe

Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit, 2024
By: Brockmann, Christian (Ed.), Deckers, Daniel (Ed.), Valente, Stefano (Ed.)

Title	Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2024
Publication Place	Berlin/Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Philosophie der Antike
Volume	44
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Brockmann, Christian , Deckers, Daniel , Valente, Stefano
Translator(s)

Von der Antike und der Spätantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer Tätigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgewählten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der Überlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.

Der Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beiträge geht auf die dreitägige internationale Konferenz „Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance" (26.–28.10.2017) zurück, die dank der Förderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universität Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat.  [publisher's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt

Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory, 2012
By: Mueller, Ian, Wilberding, James (Ed.), Horn, Christoph (Ed.)

Title	Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Pages	129-146
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mueller, Ian
Editor(s)	Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph
Translator(s)

Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato’s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius’ responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nEraa8dkGyuG6Zy

Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition, 2004
By: Fazzo, Silvia, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	1-19
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Fazzo, Silvia
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two  World Wars,  that  the 
study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to  come  into  its  own  as  a  field  of 
research.44 Among  the first  to  make  profitable  use  of  the  CAG  were  those  Orientalists, 
chiefly from Germany,  who  were interested  in  Greek-Arabic connections  and  translations. 
In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to 
identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces  transmitted  in  Arabic  under his  name 
but with titles different from those familiar to us.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR

Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators, 2016
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	New York
Publisher	Bloomsbury Academic
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

This volume presents collected essays – some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated – on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as ‘a scholarly marvel’, ‘a truly breath-taking achievement’ and ‘one of the great scholarly achievements of our time’ and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.

With a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI

Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia, 2019
By: Golitsis, Pantelis (Ed.), Ierodiakonou, Katerina (Ed.)

Title	Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2019
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien
Volume	7
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina
Translator(s)

This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JDcdeQjoSV6hLxE

Aristotle and Other Platonists, 2005
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

Title	Aristotle and Other Platonists
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Ithaca, NY
Publisher	Cornell University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In a wide-ranging book likely to cause controversy, Lloyd P. Gerson sets out the case for the "harmony" of Platonism and Aristotelianism, the standard view in late antiquity. [autor's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rxVkkaQrVPjZeXg

Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle, 2003
By: Gregory, Andrew, Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2003
Published in	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Pages	29-47
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gregory, Andrew
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.

What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.

There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.

Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB

Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter ("Physics" IV:2, 209 B 17–32), 2006
By: Fritsche, Johannes

Title	Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter ("Physics" IV:2, 209 B 17–32)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2006
Journal	Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
Volume	48
Pages	45-63
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Fritsche, Johannes
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Physics IV.2, Aristotle argues for private Space of a body as its form (209 b 1-6) and as its matter (209 b 6-11) to conclude that Plato maintains that χώρα, matter, and space are the same (209 b 11-17). Subsequently, he réfutés both possibilities of conceiving Space (209 b 17-28). In a paper on 209 b 6-17,1 have tried to show that his view of Plato is right.1 In this paper, I would like to show that in his réfutation of both possibilities Aristotle argues dialectically in the proper sense; that is, he does not use any assumption that is peculiar to  his own theory and not shared by his Opponent. For this purpose I présent (I.) Aristotle's différent usages of (ού) χωρίζεται/χωριστός (»[not] separated/separable«) and (II.) the three différent interprétations of 209 b 22-28 in Philoponus, Simplicius, and Sorabji, and I rule out Sorabji's interprétation. Thereafter, I will give three reasons for Simplicius's interprétation. The first relates to (III.) the issue of prin ciples as the main topic of the Physics in général. Secondly, (IV.) Philoponus's interprétation of 209 b 22-28 contradicts Aristotle's own définition of Space. Thirdly, (V.) only in Simplicius's interprétation is the argument dialectically va lid. Thereafter, I will show (VI.) that the argument in Simplicius's interprétation is  conclusive against Plato's reasoning in the Timaeus to finish with (VII.) some général remarks on  this paper and the paper on  209 b  1-17. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/We3uupXlF3bVzh0

Title	Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor: Pieter Sjoerd Hasper
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2021
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Scientia Graeco-Arabica
Volume	30
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger , Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd (Contributor) , Aristoteles
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle's theory of eternal continuous motion and his argument from everlasting change and motion to the existence of an unmoved primary cause of motion, provided in book VIII of his Physics, is one of the most influential and persistent doctrines of ancient Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, the exact wording of Aristotle's discourse is doubtful and contentious at many places. The present critical edition of Ishaq ibn Hunayn's Arabic translation (9th c.) is supposed to replace the faulty edition by A. Badawi and aims at contributing to the clarification of these textual difficulties by means of a detailed collation of the Arabic text with the most important Greek manuscripts, supported by comprehensive Greek and Arabic glossaries. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NW1zXhIu1ijxgPf

Aristotle's Categories in the Early Roman Empire, 2015
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	Aristotle's Categories in the Early Roman Empire
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This volume studies the origin and evolution of philosophical interest in Aristotle's Categories. After centuries of neglect, the Categories became the focus of philosophical discussion in the first century BCE, and was subsequently adopted as the basic introductory textbook for philosophy in the Aristotelian and Platonic traditions.

In this study, Michael Griffin builds on earlier work to reconstruct the fragments of the earliest commentaries on the treatise, and illuminates the earliest arguments for Aristotle's approach to logic as the foundation of higher education. Griffin argues that Andronicus of Rhodes played a critical role in the Categories' rise to prominence, and that his motivations for interest in the text can be recovered. The volume also tracks Platonic and Stoic debate over the Categories, and suggests reasons for its adoption into the mainstream of both schools.

Covering the period from the first century BCE to the third century CE, the volume focuses on individual philosophers whose views can be recovered from later, mostly Neoplatonic sources, including Andronicus of Rhodes, Eudorus of Alexandria, Pseudo-Archytas, Lucius, Nicostratus, Athenodorus, and Cornutus. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CCYdqxs5shlkkzs

Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed, 2005
By: Wilberding, James

Title	Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	The Classical Quarterly
Volume	55 (New Series)
Issue	2
Pages	447–454
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wilberding, James
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

There is, of course, no great proof stone for such negative claims. Nevertheless, this claim can be partially verified by checking to see what Simplicius has to say about Plotinus' favourite examples of double activity—light, heat, and the images in mirrors—as well as by searching the Simplician corpus to see if he uses the designations for internal and external activity that Plotinus uses. Investigation shows that Simplicius does not make use of Plotinus' designations. The closest we get is a passage in his commentary on the Physics where he provides a long quotation of Damascius in which the theory seems to appear. Otherwise, we find only some discussion of the Aristotelian distinction between first and second actuality. But Simplicius does not distinguish the activity τῆς οὐσίας from that ἐκ (or ἀπὸ) τῆς οὐσίας, nor that πρὸς τὸ ἄνω from that πρὸς τὸ κάτω, nor that ἐν αὐτῇ (or αὐτῇ) from that ἐξ (or παρ’) αὐτῆς.

Moreover, we can see that none of Plotinus' three examples is employed by Simplicius to explain double activity. Regarding the nature of light, Simplicius is even rather non-committal at times. As for heat, even when Simplicius discusses the distinction between the heat that is proper to fire (that is, the internal activity) and the heat that fire produces in another thing (that is, the external activity), he does so without using the language of the double activity theory. And Simplicius simply does not make much use of mirrors. All of this, I believe, points to the conclusion that Simplicius does not employ Plotinus' distinction between internal and external activity.

If this is right, it perhaps does not imply that Simplicius' views on the metaphysics of procession are all that different from Plotinus', but at the very least, it would show that there is sometimes a considerable difference in the way he goes about describing those views. [conclusion p. 453-454]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2vgk7grGxbqIV3p

Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories, 2014
By: Militello, Chiara

Title	Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA
Volume	1
Issue	5
Pages	91-117
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Militello, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David (Elias) are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle’s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)’s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius’, Simplicius’ and Olympiodorus’ doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle’s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David (Elias) do not. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/62qOZqwQ9rtCf7S

Aristotle’s “Now” and the Definition of Time: Method and Exegesis in Simplicius’ Interpretation of Physics IV.10, 2024
By: Thomas Seissl

Title	Aristotle’s “Now” and the Definition of Time: Method and Exegesis in Simplicius’ Interpretation of Physics IV.10
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2024
Journal	History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume	26
Issue	2
Pages	366-386
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Thomas Seissl
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Physics IV.10 (217b30–218a30) is pivotal in Aristotle’s discussion of time, preceding his own account from IV.11 onward. Aristotle presents three puzzles about the existence of time with reference to the “Now”. Modern interpretations often view this section as an aporetic prelude with Aristotle’s failure to provide explicit solutions. This paper examines Simplicius’ alternative interpretation, which draws upon the theory of proof and the syllogistic model from the Posterior Analytics. Simplicius contends that the arguments’ failure lies in their inability to fit within the suitable syllogistic framework to establish a demonstrable definition of time, not in their aporetic nature. Every science has to prove the relation between (i) establishing whether X exists and (ii) showing what X is by establishing what the cause of X is. In evaluating Simplicius’ interpretation, this paper addresses two key aspects of the exegesis of IV.10: firstly, Simplicius can show why the “Now” is not part of the definition of time, and secondly, the ancient commentator underscores the close connection between the arguments in Physics IV.10 and the broader context of Aristotle’s discussion of time. Modern interpreters fail to address both of these issues. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mOkF4fvV0VKbyeR

Aspects of Avicenna, 2001
By: Wisnovsky, Robert (Ed.)

Title	Aspects of Avicenna
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2001
Publication Place	Princeton
Publisher	Markus Wiener Publishers
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Wisnovsky, Robert
Translator(s)

The articles in this volume aim to further our understanding of the work and thought of the philosopher and physician Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusain ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā (born before 370 AH/980 CE-died 428 AH/1037 CE), known in the West by his Latinized name Avicenna.
It seems to me that what much of the best new schlorahip has in common, and what the articles in this volume aspire to, is a mature and subtle appreciation of the history of Avicenna’s philosophy. By this I mean two things. First, the increasing availability of edited Avicennian texts has allowed scholars to examine a broader spectrum of passages about particular topic than they were able to in the past. This, in turn, has made possible the recent and ongoing attempts to periodize Avicenna’s philosophical career through the careful dating of individual work. Scholars now have to come to terms with the fact that there may not be a single Avicennian position on a given issue, but rather a history of positions, adopted at different periods of his life.
Second, many of the ancient commentaries on Aristotle, though available in the original Greek for a hundred years now, have only recently been translated into English. These translations, along with the new scholarly work on the commentators which has followed in their wake, have made a massive but heretofore forbidden resource for the history of late-antique and early-medieval philosophy easily accessible to speciallists in Arabic philosophy. The more precisely we understand how Greek philosophy developed durig the period between 200 CE and 600 CE, the better able we shall be to situate the theories of philosophers such as Avicenny in their intellectual-historical context. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/e2BTuHZnaMPhPvO

Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato, 2015
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut,

Title	Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition
Volume	18
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Chase, Michael(Chase, Michael )

Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato by I. Hadot deals with the Neoplatonist tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. It shows that this harmonizing tendency, born in Middle Platonism, prevailed in Neoplatonism from Porphyry and Iamblichus, where it persisted until the end of this philosophy. Hadot aims to illustrate that it is not the different schools themselves, for instance those of Athens and Alexandria, that differ from one another by the intensity of the will to harmonization, but groups of philosophers within these schools.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xEQzdHCzqjAUU9w

Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon, 2015
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine, Delcomminette, Sylvain (Ed.), Hoine, Pieter d’ (Ed.), Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.)

Title	Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2015
Published in	Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo
Pages	293-310
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)	Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Translator(s)

Or, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n’a pas écrit de commentaire sur le Phédon. En tant que membre de l’École d’Athènes, il a certes dû lire et interpréter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-être même assisté à l’une (au moins) des deux séries de cours dispensées par son maître. À tout le moins, il devait en connaître l’existence et avoir pris position par rapport à une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interprétation du Phédon, il faut emprunter un chemin détourné, en examinant les citations et allusions liées à ce dialogue à travers ses différents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Phédon et à quelle fin ?

Dans cette étude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d’abord, j’aimerais examiner l’apport personnel de Simplicius à l’interprétation du Phédon, par rapport à la tradition dans laquelle il s’inscrit. Ensuite, plus particulièrement, je voudrais évaluer la distance de Simplicius à l’égard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l’École platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j’espère contribuer à la compréhension de la méthode et de l’originalité de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI

Augustin, «Confessions» 4, 16, 28-29, «Soliloques» 2, 20, 34-36 et les «Commentaires des catégories», 2001
By: Doucet, Dominique

Title	Augustin, «Confessions» 4, 16, 28-29, «Soliloques» 2, 20, 34-36 et les «Commentaires des catégories»
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2001
Journal	Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica
Volume	93
Issue	3
Pages	372-392
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Doucet, Dominique
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Au terme de cette étude montrant les points de consonance entre les thèmes développés dans les derniers paragraphes des Soliloques et les problématiques mises en œuvre dans les commentaires des Catégories, deux conclusions principales se présentent. Premièrement, l'antériorité des écrits d'Augustin sur la rédaction de la plus grande partie des commentaires des Catégories oblige à considérer un seul et même auteur ou une seule et même source, tant pour Augustin que pour les auteurs des commentaires ultérieurs. La place que reçoit le commentaire de Porphyre dans les autres commentaires et l'importance de cet auteur dans l'élaboration des schémas de pensée augustiniens conduisent naturellement à la conclusion que c'est dans une œuvre porphyrienne qu'Augustin a pu rencontrer l'essentiel de cette argumentation.

Il reste alors à tenter de déterminer laquelle. Le peu d'intérêt qu'Augustin accorde aux lectures des magistri eruditissimi qu'il évoque dans les Confessions semble écarter l'hypothèse qu'il garderait un vif souvenir des conversations de son adolescence. Autrement, il n'aurait pas oublié à ce point d'en mentionner l'importance, comme il le fait pour sa lecture de l'Hortensius et pour celle des libri platonicorum, qui eurent une influence déterminante sur l'évolution de sa pensée.

Il semble alors plus probable de considérer qu'Augustin a rencontré une argumentation identique à celle qui se trouve dans les commentaires ultérieurs des Catégories, celle de Porphyre en son propre commentaire, qu'Augustin a pu rencontrer soit dans un texte du dossier des libri platonicorum, soit inséré dans un autre écrit comme le De regressu animae ou encore le Zêtêma sur l'immortalité de l'âme, dont nous savons qu'il prit connaissance.

Il serait même tentant de considérer que la progression même des Soliloques suit en parallèle l'essentiel de la progression qui pourrait être celle du De regressu.

Cette hypothèse nous amène directement au second volet de cette conclusion. Si Augustin emprunte un certain nombre de thèmes à l'univers néoplatonicien et porphyrien, il ne manque pas de les transformer profondément. Nous avons déjà signalé, dans une lecture de Sol. 2, 18, 32, la manière dont Augustin reprend les degrés de la hiérarchie des êtres du néoplatonisme et la transforme en une hiérarchie des degrés du vrai. En effet, la hiérarchie de Marius Victorinus (uere sunt, quae sunt, non uere non sunt, uere non sunt) se retrouve en partie chez Augustin sous la forme : uere uerum (ueritas), uerum, tendit esse et non est.

Cette transformation de la hiérarchie des êtres en une hiérarchie des degrés du vrai s'explique assez bien par le projet même des Soliloques : connaître Dieu et l'âme, et par la démonstration de l'immortalité de l'âme qui s'y trouve. C'est par la présence en l'âme de l'immortelle Vérité que l'âme est assurée de son immortalité, et cette preuve, dans l'esprit d'Augustin, est supérieure à celle, classique, de l'auto-motricité de l'âme.

Dans les paragraphes 34 à 36 de la fin des Soliloques, c'est une semblable hiérarchie des degrés du vrai que nous rencontrons. Il est donc nécessaire sur ce point de conclure que tout en s'inspirant des thèmes néoplatoniciens et en particulier porphyriens, Augustin leur fait subir un déplacement notable et développe, plutôt qu'une ontologie, une métaphysique du vrai qui lui permet de connaître son âme, d'accéder à la certitude de son immortalité, et de progresser dans sa recherche de Dieu, recherche dont il résumera l'essentiel de la progression dans les Confessions et dont il dressera les harmoniques dans le De Trinitate. [conclusion p 390-392]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ilXNYhEQOhMEPLW

Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition, 2021
By: Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2021
Publication Place	Cambridge – New York
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme, 2009
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Bonazzi, Mauro (Ed.), Opsomer, Jan (Ed.)

Title	Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2009
Published in	The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts
Pages	89-111
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)	Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan
Translator(s)

Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels.

C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.

Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote.

Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ».

Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme.

Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel.

Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C.

S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher.
[conclusion p. 107-108]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09

Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology, 2016
By: Rashed, Marwan, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	103-124
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

His doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos’ nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories.

For sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance.
[introduction p. 103-104]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYH889DSksf6EXe

Title	Book Review: Ivan A. Licciardi (2017). Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al de Caelo di Aristotele, Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario (Symbolon 44). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2020
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	41
Issue	1
Pages	201-207
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Manfred Kraus
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

È fuori d ’ogni dubbio che i commentari di Simplicio alla Fisica e al De Caelo di
Aristotele siano d’importanza primaria per la nostra conoscenza della filosofia
di Parmenide, come anche –ed anzitutto –per la trasmissione di una gran
parte dei frammenti. Nell’anno 2016 Ivan Licciardi ha pubblicato il suo libro
intitolato Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto, in cui ha dedicato la sua
analisi al commentario alla Fisica. Solo un anno dopo, Licciardi ha completato
questo primo studio con un altro libro, anch’esso con un titolo provocante: 
Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente, dedicato al commentario al De Caelo.
Ambedue i libri sono strettamente legati l’uno all’altro. Nella premessa,
l’Autore dice che quando ha pubblicato il primo libro aveva già raccolto quasi 
tutti i materiali per il secondo. Ha deciso, tuttavia, di pubblicarli in due volumi
separati, da un lato per ragioni di quantità (perché un solo libro avrebbe
superato le mille pagine), ma anche per una ragione scientifica sostanziale, e
cioè perché nei due commentari, secondo Licciardi, Simplicio contempla il
pensiero parmenideo da prospettive diverse. Mentre nel commentario alla
Fisica l’interpretazione è incentrata sul rapporto fra l’essere e l’uno, nell’altro
commentario, invece, il Commentatore si occupa del rapporto fra essere sen-
sibile ed essere intelligibile e quindi del problema della generazione e del
divenire. [Introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xCZ6vrIKvYZF5PU

Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share, 2015
By: Hatzistavrou, Antony

Title	Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	9
Issue	1
Pages	124 –125
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hatzistavrou, Antony
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

A preface by Richard Sorabji, which explains the importance of the commentary for scholarship on the ancient commentators on Aristotle.
An introduction by Michael Chase, which focuses on Simplicius’ polemic against Philoponus.
A list of departures of the translation from Diels’ edition of Simplicius’ commentary.
An English-Greek glossary.
A Greek-English index.
A subject index.
A bibliography.

The volume is clearly designed with the needs of the specialist scholar in mind and aims to become the primary reference text in English for the study of Simplicius’ commentary.

Where does the importance of Simplicius’ commentary lie? It is instructive that both Sorabji, in his preface, and Chase, in his introduction, focus on its importance for the history of philosophy in late antiquity. First, it sheds light on an aspect of the philosophical and ideological debate between pagan and Christian thinkers at the end of antiquity concerning the intelligibility of the creation of the world. In Physics 8.1, Aristotle argues that time and motion are eternal. For any arbitrarily chosen moment in time or motion in space, one will always be able to identify a preceding and a subsequent moment or motion. This means that the world as a whole is eternal. Philoponus understood Aristotle’s arguments for the eternity of the universe to pose problems for a creationist account of the world, as advocated by the Judeo-Christian religion. In his polemic Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, Philoponus undertakes the task of defending a creationist account of the world by attacking Aristotle’s arguments for the eternity of motion and time.

In his commentary, Simplicius attacks Philoponus, accusing him, among other things, of failing to understand and thus misrepresenting Aristotle’s position. A primary aim of his commentary on Physics 8.1 is, on the one hand, to identify and correct what he takes to be Philoponus’ distortions of Aristotle’s arguments and, on the other hand, to vindicate the cogency of Aristotle’s theory against Philoponus’ polemic. Simplicius makes no attempt to conceal his disdain for Philoponus’ scholarly abilities and intellectual integrity, describing his arguments as "garbage" and accusing him of being motivated by his "zeal for contradicting." In his introduction, Michael Chase clarifies that Simplicius’ attack is not restricted to issues concerning the proper interpretation of Aristotle’s theory but has a wider scope. It is meant as an attack on Philoponus’ Christian faith. In this attack, Simplicius occasionally reveals himself to be conversant with intricate Christian theological debates, such as the debate concerning the nature of Christ (i.e., whether Christ was begotten or made).

Second, as Richard Sorabji mentions in his preface, Simplicius’ commentary reports and makes extensive use of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ lost commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. On Sorabji’s view, Simplicius, on the whole, reports Alexander’s views accurately. Furthermore, despite occasional disagreements about the interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy, Simplicius shows respect for Alexander’s abilities as a commentator and values his intellectual integrity. Simplicius’ attitude towards Alexander is thus sharply contrasted with his attitude towards Philoponus.

Scholars interested in the debate between pagan and Christian philosophers at the end of antiquity and in the history of the ancient commentators on Aristotle will welcome the translation into English of Simplicius’ commentary. They may also find much material in the notes to the translation to grapple with. The volume will also appeal to anyone interested in Aristotle’s natural philosophy and, more specifically, in Aristotle’s views about the eternity of the world and the prime mover. The detailed English-Greek glossary and the indices make the volume a significant research tool likely to become a reference point in relevant scholarship. In addition, the volume is nicely produced. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/um5b6staCmgDtbZ

Boéthos de Sidon sur les relatifs, 2013
By: Luna, Concetta

Title	Boéthos de Sidon sur les relatifs
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2013
Journal	Studia greaco-arabica
Volume	3
Pages	1-35
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Luna, Concetta
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The Peripatetic philosopher Boethus of Sidon (mid-first century BC), a pupil of Andronicus of Rhodes, is well-known for his commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, whose fragments are transmitted by later commentators together with testimonia about it. In his exegesis of the Categories, Boethus especially focused on the category of relation (Cat. 7), on which he wrote a speci!c treatise, arguing against the Stoics for the unity of the category of relation. The present paper o"ers a translation and analysis of Boethus’ fragments on relation, all of which are preserved in Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9oljjSmWv94OJA7

Boéthos de Sidon: Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe, 2020
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo (Ed.), Rashed, Marwan (Ed.)

Title	Boéthos de Sidon: Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2020
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB)
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan
Translator(s)

Cet ouvrage contient la première collection des fragments conservés, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe péripatéticien Boéthos de Sidon (Ier siècle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction française et un commentaire exhaustif. Ce livre est un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs intéressés par l'histoire de l'aristotélisme et, plus généralement, de la philosophie grecque dans son ensemble. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xgEgyCs5u1m2GF6

Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity, 2018
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)

Title	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2018
Publication Place	Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Brill's companions to classical reception
Volume	13
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: ‘Early Developments in Reception’ (four chapters); ‘Early Imperial Reception’ (nine chapters); and ‘Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism’ (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY

Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought, 2020
By: Harry, Chelsea C. (Ed.), Habash, Justin  (Ed.)

Title	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2020
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Ancient Philosophy
Volume	6
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Harry, Chelsea C. , Habash, Justin
Translator(s)

In Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural  Philosophy in Later Classical Thought, contributions by GottfriedHeinemann, Andrew Gregory, Justin Habash, Daniel W. Graham,Oliver Primavesi, Owen Goldin, Omar D. Álvarez Salas, ChristopherKurfess, Dirk L. Couprie, Tiberiu Popa, Timothy J. Crowley, LilianaCarolina Sánchez Castro, Iakovos Vasiliou, Barbara Sattler, Rosemary Wright, and a foreword by Patricia Curd explore the influences of early Greek science (6-4th c. BCE) on thephilosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, and the Hippocratics. Rather than presenting an unified narrative, the volume supports various ways to understand the development of the concept of nature, the emergence of science, and the historical context of topics such as elements, principles, soul, organization, causation,purpose, and cosmos in ancient Greek philosophy. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z20ST1xtbE5fFTL

Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity, 2016
By: Falcon, Andrea (Ed.)

Title	Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Translator(s)

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle’s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TjdS065EwQq3iWS

Categories and Subcategories, 2014
By: Tegtmeier, Erwin

Title	Categories and Subcategories
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Anuario Filosófico
Volume	47
Issue	2
Pages	395-411
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tegtmeier, Erwin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle’s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle’s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IN81x5WTB9e5jh5

Categories. Histories and Perspectives, 2017
By: D'Anna, Giuseppe (Ed.), Fossati, Lorenzo (Ed.)

Title	Categories. Histories and Perspectives
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2017
Publication Place	Hildesheim, Zurich, New York
Publisher	Georg Olms Verlag
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo
Translator(s)

The reflection upon the categories leaves a fundamental mark in the history of philosophy. By theorizing such issue, philosophy gains a meta-reflexive feature, which is probably one of the most distinguishing traits of this kind of knowledge, including its method. In the history of philosophy, the question of the categories has been gradually investigated and clarified but it still remains to be solved. Therefore, from a philosophical perspective, the history of the categories is far from coming to an end: since ancient times, it has been debated and discussed, thus revealing all its theoretical potential. Such a broad history should be taken into account by any present study that wants to represent a real progress in the research, in order to avoid repeating errors that have been already made in the past. Among other things, this is one of the objectives of the present volume, which comes from the will to describe some paths and perspectives of this history, without claiming to deliver an exhaustive overview and rather representing the first partial contribution to a wider project. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5WHKZ8gLcfcivZ4

Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5, 2017
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Balansard, Anne (Ed.), Jaulin, Annick (Ed.)

Title	Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne
Pages	157-179
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)	Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick
Translator(s)

Nous résumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette étude.

Alexandre souscrit à la thèse selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premières par rapport aux genres et aux espèces, mais cela n’implique à ses yeux aucune conséquence particulariste ou nominaliste.

La définition des substances premières qu’Aristote présente dans les Catégories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s’appliquer à la forme séparée, c’est-à-dire aux Premiers Moteurs.

L’existence de formes dans la matière ne contredit pas le critère de substantialité établi dans les Catégories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant être « dans un sujet » au sens des Catégories.

À ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l’interprétation du enkorōs du traité permet à Alexandre de lire les Catégories de manière intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la sémantique de ce traité à son ontologie des natures immanentes.

De notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour intégrer les Catégories à sa métaphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l’argument typique des Néoplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l’ontologie des Catégories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences phénoménales que reflète notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26).

Bien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument à la position d’Alexandre : d’abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, suggère qu’Aristote, dans les Catégories, considère les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premières en tant qu’elles sont premières quoad nos.

Une fois énoncée cette solution canonique et bien attestée depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s’attaque à Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premières par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32).

Comme nous l’avons montré plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l’ontologie de la nature commune qu’Alexandre développait pour défendre sa position. Cependant, d’après ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premières dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu’Aristote établit dans les Catégories.

Pour Alexandre, la lecture sémantique des Catégories n’avait donc pas pour but de détacher la doctrine des catégories de l’ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkorōs, Alexandre rattache de manière très étroite la doctrine des catégories à son ontologie essentialiste.

Par ailleurs, la lecture sémantique du traité est parmi les éléments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Boéthos. Tous deux pensent que les Catégories portent sur les mots signifiants. La différence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la manière de concevoir la signification et dans les présupposés ontologiques qu’ils mettent en œuvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines sémantiques.
[conclusion p. 176-177]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme

Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity, 2015
By: Marmodoro, Anna (Ed.), Prince, Brian (Ed.)

Title	Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Cambridge
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian
Translator(s)

Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP

Chapter 7. Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle, 2016
By: Panayiotis Tzamalikos

Title	Chapter 7. Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity
Pages	421-487
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Panayiotis Tzamalikos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle’s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras’ propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous.

In this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius’ reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle’s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master’s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle’s allegations.

We have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras’ principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius’ explanation, branding it as “Neoplatonic.” It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.¹

In this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras’ own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term “incorporeal,” even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term “incorporeal” a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning “incorporeal.” God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.² In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180–125 AD) boldly asserted that “God is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body”;³ for “nothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.”⁴ So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic.

What is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term “incorporeal” (or indeed the term “principle”) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras’ principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be “logical to the bitter end.”⁵

It is now time for us to see Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422]

Online Resources

City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria, 2006
By: Watts, E. J.

Title	City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Berkeley – London – Los Angeles
Publisher	University of California Press
Series	The Joan Palevsky imprint in classical literature 41
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, E. J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This lively and wide-ranging study of the men and ideas of late antique education explores the intellectual and doctrinal milieux in the two great cities of Athens and Alexandria from the second to the sixth centuries to shed new light on the interaction between the pagan cultural legacy and Christianity. While previous scholarship has seen Christian reactions to pagan educational culture as the product of an empire-wide process of development, Edward J. Watts crafts two narratives that reveal how differently education was shaped by the local power structures and urban contexts of each city. Touching on the careers of Herodes Atticus, Proclus, Damascius, Ammonius Saccas, Origen, Hypatia, and Olympiodorus; and events including the Herulian sack of Athens, the closing of the Athenian Neoplatonic school under Justinian, the rise of Arian Christianity, and the sack of the Serapeum, he shows that by the sixth century, Athens and Alexandria had two distinct, locally determined, approaches to pagan teaching that had their roots in the unique historical relationships between city and school.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OpuRY87kdA6jtIi

Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, 2016
By: Kraus, Christina S. (Ed.), Stray, Christopher (Ed.)

Title	Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher
Translator(s)

This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.

Online Resources

Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série
Volume	10
Pages	1-23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term « contamination » (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik.  By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium’s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts – not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule « the principle of collation » ; it can be formulated like this : « Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of 
collation of at least two different manuscripts. » [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB

Commentaire à la ›Physique‹ d’Aristote: Digressions sur le lieu et sur le temps, 2023
By: Golitsis, Pantelis (Ed.), Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.)

Title	Commentaire à la ›Physique‹ d’Aristote: Digressions sur le lieu et sur le temps
Type	Monograph
Language	undefined
Date	2023
Publisher	De Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe
Translator(s)

Neuedition der sogenannten Corollaria de loco et de tempore aus dem Kommentar des Simplikios zum Buch IV der aristotelischen Physik. Die vorliegende Edition (mitsamt philosophischer und philologischer Einleitung und Annotationen) basiert auf der vollständigen Kollation aller unabhängigen Handschriften des Kommentars (u. a. des Kodex Mosquensis Muz. 3649, der dem Editor der modernen Referenzausgabe des Kommentars Hermann Diels unbekannt war). [author's abstract]

Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima, 2020
By: Miller, Dana R.

Title	Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2020
Journal	Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
Volume	35
Issue	2
Pages	23-27
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Miller, Dana R.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition’s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius’s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3xAEvu1rDgjfUMU

Commentators on Aristotle, 2005
By: Falcon, Andrea, Zalta, Edward N. (Ed.)

Title	Commentators on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Editor(s)	Zalta, Edward N.
Translator(s)

Due to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition, there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretation in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis.

The exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical works to explicating and extracting Aristotle’s distinctive philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement.
[conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GtNhh0ejpXZdIhQ

Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism, 2002
By: D'Ancona Costa, Cristina, Geerlings, Wilhelm (Ed.), Schulze, Christian (Ed.)

Title	Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung
Pages	201-251
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Editor(s)	Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian
Translator(s)

The paper explores the structural aspects of the Arabic-Latin reception of Aristotle's works, particularly the approach or approaches taken by Arab philosophers in transmitting Aristotelian texts to the Latin Middle Ages. The author argues that the analysis of the doctrinal contents of the Arabic Aristotle is complex and instead focuses on the movement of rise and development of the medieval genre of philosophical commentary, particularly the line by line commentary typical of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The paper discusses the history and institutional context of the medieval philosophical commentary, including the influence of scriptural exegesis, literary and rhetorical traditions, and juridical and medical literature. The paper concludes that Neoplatonism was of paramount importance in the transmission of the Aristotelian corpus both to the Arabic and Latin Middle Ages. The paper also includes a synopsis of the Greek commentaries to Aristotle's works and their mentions in the Arab bio-bibliographical sources. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h8mLq4r5ceUYN0j

Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul, 2021
By: Aerts, Saskia, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	178-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Aerts, Saskia
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3.

The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴

In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony.

The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines.

In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD

Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2011
Journal	Études platoniciennes
Volume	8
Pages	145-160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

La conciliation des doctrines au cœur de l’exégèse d’Aristote suit un parcours précis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture littérale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de façon surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d’Aristote contre elle-même : en faire non plus un adversaire de la théorie des Idées séparées, mais l’auteur d’un critère de validité de la séparation. Dans un deuxième temps, notre exégète s’emploie à montrer la teneur authentiquement aristotélicienne de cette doctrine des Idées séparées. Il isole d’abord les caractères reconnus aux Idées, avant de démontrer qu’ils sont admis au sein même de la pensée d’Aristote. De plus, étant donné que l’enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste à trouver chez Aristote la double caractérisation des Idées que leur attribuent leurs partisans – être à la fois des causes et des modèles semblables pour les réalités naturelles –, il répertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et insère des éléments provenant de la tradition néoplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les réalités qui admettent des Formes séparées et celles qui n’en admettent pas.

Comme souvent chez Simplicius, l’examen aboutit à l’énoncé d’un critère net et précis. Il doit permettre ici de démarquer l’homonymie vulgaire des Idées de l’éponymie légitime. La première résulte d’un dépouillement de la forme en dehors de la matière, mais qui continue à raisonner à partir d’ici-bas : elle cherche des Idées séparées pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais être complètement abstraites de la matière à laquelle elles sont liées. La seconde reconnaît que certains noms sont propres aux composés ici-bas et, par conséquent, ne correspondent à aucune réalité là-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Idées, à la fois causes et modèles des composés ici-bas, qui possèdent une subsistance séparée.

Si le travail exégétique de Simplicius ne brille pas toujours par son génie philosophique, il s’emploie à chercher des solutions à certains des problèmes les plus complexes de la tradition platonicienne. Comme souvent, la solution qu’il propose, en dépit du bricolage doctrinal sur lequel elle se fonde, lève la difficulté d’une façon nette et précise. Il offre une nouvelle fois aux commentateurs que nous sommes une leçon à méditer. [conclusion p. 159-160]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ihW4uaycr2RFg3O

Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements, 2005
By: Knox, Dilwyn

Title	Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
Volume	68
Pages	157-211
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Knox, Dilwyn
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Nor, for the same reason, should we think that Neoplatonic sun symbolism was important to him. His brief references to sun symbolism and Hermes Trismegistus take up no more than five or so lines and derive mostly from standard classical sources, including Pliny in a passage immediately following the latter's discussion of gravity. The main problem facing Copernicus was to make the earth move, not to explain why the sun stood at the center.

He also consulted doxographical works explaining the many and divergent views of ancient thinkers, for instance, pseudo-Plutarch's Placita philosophorum, Bessarion's In calumniatorem Platonis, and Giorgio Valla's De expetendis. He consulted classical Latin authors like Pliny and Cicero, who, through the endeavors of Renaissance humanists and the agency of the printing press, had become better known during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. His extensive use of Pliny's Natural History, Book II, exemplifies the way in which the latter became a popular source for alternatives to Aristotelian or scholastic natural philosophy during the sixteenth century.

The greatest debt, in other words, that Copernicus the cosmologist owed was not to Renaissance Platonism or a revamped Aristotelianism. It was rather to the variety of ancient learning promoted by Renaissance humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. To them he owed not just the wherewithal and encouragement to consult a much wider library of classical authors than his scholastic predecessors were wont to do but also the intellectual flexibility to regard his sources as no more than that—sources for ideas rather than authorities.

In this, Copernicus was typical of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century "scientific" thinkers, Galileo included. But Renaissance humanism left its mark in another important respect. Copernicus set himself the task of learning Greek, and this provided him, if the evidence above is to be trusted, with one of his most important cosmological doctrines. [conclusion p. 210-211]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/x8JGitPSYOT3L0a

Cosmología, cosmogonía y teogonía en el poema de Parménides, 2010
By: Bredlow, Luis-Andrés

Title	Cosmología, cosmogonía y teogonía en el poema de Parménides
Type	Article
Language	Spanish
Date	2010
Journal	Emerita: Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clasíca
Volume	78
Issue	2
Pages	275-297
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bredlow, Luis-Andrés
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides’ system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius’ reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides’ cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and – as I will try to show – in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4). [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IstgO7KI8zaKM84

Title	Critica dell’apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	Symbolon
Volume	44
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Nell'opera di Simplicio l'esegesi non può essere separata dalla filosofia neoplatonica presa nel suo senso più ampio: ciò che egli ci propone non è soltanto una interpretazione complessiva del reale a partire da premesse platonico-aristoteliche, ma anche una Weltanschauung che è, o ritiene di essere, quella degli Elleni, e che trova la sua espressione più completa nell'accordo, µ , tra le filosofie di Aristotele, di Platone e dei Preplatonici e le antiche tradizioni teologiche. Questo libro di Ivan Adriano Licciardi, che completa felicemente la sua opera precedente, persegue del tutto opportunamente questa linea di ricerca e arricchisce la nostra visione su Simplicio filosofo, che cita e interpreta Parmenide. Questo libro mostra, attraverso una lettura minuziosa dei passi interessati del Commentario al De Caelo, che, secondo l'esegesi del filosofo neoplatonico, il vecchio filosofo di Elea - come altri filosofi che rappresentano la - anticipa Platone e, nella prospettiva della µ , anche Aristotele, nella misura in cui Parmenide concepì una ontologia dualista, che ingloba tanto il mondo dell'essere - uno quanto il mondo del divenire - molteplice, e nella quale la verità del mondo intelligibile conferisce uno statuto apparente al mondo sensibile'.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Emh7KiLhMWFS6CV

Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles, 2006
By: Perkams, Matthias, Ackeren, Marcel van (Ed.), Müller, Jörn (Ed.)

Title	Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2006
Published in	Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy
Pages	332-347
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)	Ackeren, Marcel van , Müller, Jörn
Translator(s)

Zudem stellt sich die Frage, ob man die These der Harmonie tatsächlich als „verrückt“ bezeichnen soll. So mag sie manchem scheinen, der aus der Perspektive moderner historisch-kritischer Forschung einen deutlichen Unterschied von Platon und Aristoteles erkennt. Für die Kommentatoren selbst war die Harmonisierung aber definitiv nicht verrückt, sondern sie war, wie oben bereits angedeutet, unter den Bedingungen ihrer Zeit ein wichtiges Mittel dazu, die eigene Identität zu wahren und die Deutungshoheit über die gesamte ältere Tradition gegenüber den Ansprüchen des Christentums zu erhalten.

Zudem macht die Harmonie auf ein anderes Charakteristikum der neuplatonischen Philosophie aufmerksam, das Simplikios herausstreicht: Das Ziel des Philosophierens besteht darin, durch die Suche nach der Wahrheit als Mensch zu wachsen. Der Königsweg der Neuplatoniker zu diesem Ziel ist es, die Werke ihrer Vorgänger zu studieren und das zu übernehmen, was zu diesem Ziel beiträgt. Das ist eine Maxime für das philosophische Studium, die bis heute nichts von ihrer Aktualität verloren hat. [conclusion p. 347]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iwVpoc1bGR9ng0D

Dating of Philoponus’ Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius, 2016
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Dating of Philoponus’ Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	367-392
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

The second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus’ seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus’ commentarial (skholastikai) notes (aposêmeiôseis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus’ name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idiôn) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry’s Introduction (Isagôgê), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle’s logic. All this could have several important implications.

First, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus’ own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius’ seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius’ lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius’ lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving.

However, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli’s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius’ seminars and Philoponus’ (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus’ editions of Ammonius’ lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry’s Isagôgê, and on Aristotle’s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics.

So far, Golitsis’ conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8

De Anima: Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, 2006
By: Salatowsky, Sascha

Title	De Anima: Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2006
Publication Place	Amsterdam
Publisher	B.R. Grüner
Series	Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie
Volume	4
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Salatowsky, Sascha
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle’s On the soul is one of the most important books in the history of philosophy. Its fundamental achievement is based on the ontological-ontical definition of the soul and its virtues, which embrace all living beings, including the doctrine of the mind (nous), and whose further explication has been interpreted controversially since antiquity. With respect to the traditional schools of Alexandrism, Neoplatonism, Averroism and Thomism the present study studies the various philosophical and theological constellations of the 16th and 17th century, which were determined by the intracatholical as well as by the interdenominational controversies between the Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. From this point of view the works of Luther and Melanchthon, of the Renaissance-Aristotelians Portio, Toletus, Zabarella, and the Conimbricenses as well as the works of the Lutheran and Calvinistic Philosophers of the 17th century are interpreted, these last ones being taken into consideration here for the first time. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vPm1T0yGbb0btt1

De Simplicius À Ḥunayn: La Transmission d'Une Doxographie Dans Les Résumés au Traité Sur Les Éléments de Galien, 2023
By: Mathilde Brémond

Title	De Simplicius À Ḥunayn: La Transmission d'Une Doxographie Dans Les Résumés au Traité Sur Les Éléments de Galien
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2023
Journal	Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume	33
Issue	1
Pages	1-23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mathilde Brémond
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper examines two doxographies present in Ḥunayn’s summaries to Galen’s treatise On the Elements. We track the origin of these doxographies back, from Greek scolia to Galen’s treatise to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, which we show to be the ultimate source. We also point out that Simplicius’ Commentary inspired an interpretation of Parmenides and Melissus that we find in Ḥunayn’s texts. This allows us to see remnants of Simplicius’ Commentary in the Arabic world and to shed some light on the production of these summaries to Galen’s work called Summaria Alexandrinorum. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zlN6Bivl0O6bw9q

Title	De l'Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2014
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Vrin
Series	Études musulmanes
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Coda, Elisa , Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia
Translator(s)

La circulation du savoir philosophique à travers les traductions du grec au syriaque, du grec à l’arabe, du syriaque à l’arabe, de l’arabe au latin forme, depuis un siècle et plus de recherches savantes, un domaine scientifique à part entière. Ce volume réunit des spécialistes des disciplines du domaine voulant rendre hommage à un collègue dont l’activité a ouvert une voie, Henri Hugonnard-Roche.
Spécialiste de la transmission du grec au syriaque de la logique aristotélicienne, Henri Hugonnard-Roche a montré par ses recherches la continuité entre la philosophie de l’Antiquité tardive et la pensée des chrétiens de langue syriaque d’un côté, des savants musulmans écrivant en arabe, de l’autre. Réunis souvent par ce que Werner Jaeger avait autrefois désigné comme « la portée œcuménique de l’Antiquité classique », des musulmans et des chrétiens faisant partie d’un cercle philosophique se penchaient, dans la ville de Bagdad au Xe siècle, sur le texte d’Aristote. Leur « Aristote » était souvent celui de l’Antiquité tardive : l’Aristote de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Alexandrie que les intellectuels de la Syrie chrétienne avaient déjà rencontré quelque quatre siècles auparavant et qu’ils avaient traduit, en même temps que Galien, et parfois commenté. Des noms presque inconnus comme celui de Sergius de Resh’ayna (mort en 536) commencent dans nos manuels à en côtoyer d’autres bien plus connus, comme celui de Boèce, grâce aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche. Ce volume, par la variété des langues qui s’y entremêlent, des traditions de pensée qu’il fait fusionner, par l’acribie des contributions et le caractère novateur des éditions de textes et des études ponctuelles qu’il contient, témoigne du rayonnement international du savant auquel il est offert, et de l’effervescence du domaine de recherche auquel il a si grandement contribué. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j7haSVMVm5wa9du

Dealing with Disagreement The Construction of Traditions in Later Ancient Philosophy, 2023
By: Ulacco, Angela, Ulacco, Angela (Ed.), Joosse, Albert (Ed.)

Title	Dealing with Disagreement The Construction of Traditions in Later Ancient Philosophy
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2023
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Series	Monothéismes et Philosophie, vol. 33
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ulacco, Angela
Editor(s)	Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert
Translator(s)

Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE.

By studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AMFfDilUSW4mZpD

Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy , 2023
By: Ulacco, Angela (Ed.), Joosse, Albert (Ed.)

Title	Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2023
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert
Translator(s)

Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE.

By studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mQL8DFZ9PPylGiK

Defending Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Age of the Counter-Reformation: Iacopo Zabarella on the Mortality of the Soul according to Aristotle, 2009
By: Branko Mitrovic

Title	Defending Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Age of the Counter-Reformation: Iacopo Zabarella on the Mortality of the Soul according to Aristotle
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie
Volume	91
Issue	3
Pages	330-354
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Branko Mitrovic
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The work of the Paduan Aristotelian philosopher Iacopo Zabarella (1533–
1589) has attracted the attention of historians of philosophy mainly for his contributions to logic, scientific methodology and because of his possible influence on Galileo.
At the same time, Zabarella’s views on Aristotelian psychology have been little studied so far; even those historians of Renaissance philosophy who have discussed them, have based their analysis mainly on the psychological essays included in Zabarella’s De rebus naturalibus, but have avoided Zabarella’s commentary on Aristotle’s De anima. This has led to an inaccurate, but widespread, understanding of Zabarella’s views. The intention of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of Zabarella’s arguments about the (im)mortality of the soul in the context of Aristotelian psychology. Zabarella’s view that the soul is mortal according to Aristotle is remarkable for his time, while his elaboration of this position is far more comprehensive than that of Pietro Pomponazzi, the other significant Renaissance thinker who shared the same view. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yApKXKo5NhAKVkF

Democrito e l'Accademia. Studi sulla trasmissione dell’atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio, 2007
By: Gemelli Marciano, Millj Laura

Title	Democrito e l'Accademia. Studi sulla trasmissione dell’atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2007
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Studia Praesocratica
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gemelli Marciano, Millj Laura
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Wie sind die antiken Atomisten zur Annahme der Atome gekommen, und wie haben sie deren Unteilbarkeit aufgefasst? Dies sind die schwierigsten Fragen in der Forschung zum antiken Atomismus, und ihnen widmet sich Laura Gemelli in der vorliegenden Studie. Sie überprüft die antike Überlieferung unter einem neuen Gesichtspunkt: nämlich ausgehend von dem Einfluss, den der akademische Atomismus und die damit verbundenen Problemstellungen und Begriffe auf die Interpretation des antiken Atomismus bei Aristoteles hatten.

Diese bisher vernachlässigte Perspektive führt zur kritischen Revision allgemein akzeptierter Thesen wie der Entstehung des Atomismus aus dem Eleatismus und der Annahme des Atoms als Lösung der Aporien über die unendliche Teilbarkeit. Die von Aristoteles und von Theophrast ausgehenden Auffassungen des Atomismus werden dann in ihrer weiteren Entwicklung bis zum Neuplatonismus verfolgt. Das Buch schafft die Grundlagen für eine Neubewertung der Quellen und für eine Verschiebung der Perspektive in der Forschung zum antiken Atomismus. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U3EjUn93CcQdEug

Title	Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 3: Alexander von Aphrodisias
Type	Book Series
Language	German
Date	2001
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Moraux, Paul
Editor(s)	Wiesner, Jürgen , Wolfgang Kullmann , Robert W. Sharples
Translator(s)

In der spätantiken Philosophie, weiß Rezensent Thomas Sören Hoffmann zu berichten, war es nicht verpönt, auf die eigene Originalität zu verzichten und sich als Sprachrohr und Exeget der großen Denker zu verstehen - im Gegenteil. Auch Alexander von Aphrodisias (um 200 n.Chr.), dem Paul Moraux sein Buch gewidmet hat, gehört zu dieser Exegeten-Tradition. Ihm verdankt die "Nachwelt" Referate von verschollenen Aristoteles-Texten. Bemerkenswert findet Hoffmann, dass Moraux sich vor allem den noch nicht eingehend erforschten Gebieten des aristotelischen Denkens in der Alexander-Rezeption widmet. Dass bedingt, dass Moraux kein lückenloses Kompendium bietet, aber auf jeden Fall, lobt Hoffmann, eine "umfassende" Dokumentation über Moraux' Beschäftigung mit den Begriffen der Zeit, der Seele und der Metaphysik bei Alexander. Der Rezensent bedauert allerdings, dass das Ethik-Kapitel, mit dem der verstorbene Moraux sich nicht mehr auseinandersetzen konnte, unter fremder Feder in den Band aufgenommen wurde. Hier komme es zu einem Stilbruch, der nach Ansicht des Rezensenten hätte vermieden werden können, wenn das Ethik-Kapitel im geplanten Supplement-Band erschienen wäre, anstelle des Registers, das der Leser, so Hoffmann, "schmerzlich vermisst". Versöhnlich jedoch das Fazit: Lange hat die Forschung auf diesen Band gewartet - zu Recht. [Rezensionsnotiz Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/n4lUtE7tjgwtpRZ

Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus, 2019
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Koch, Dietmar (Ed.), Männlein-Robert, Irmgard (Ed.), Weidtmann (Ed.)

Title	Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2019
Published in	Platon und die Physis
Pages	241-253
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann
Translator(s)

In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erklärt, von denen alle anderen Realitäten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebensähnliche Kraft, die für die Schöpfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm

Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung, 2002
By: Geerlings, Wilhelm (Ed.), Schulze, Christian (Ed.)

Title	Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston – Köln
Publisher	Brill
Series	Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi
Volume	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian
Translator(s)

This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.
Introductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR

Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike, 2001
By: Huber Cancik (Ed.), Helmuth Schneider (Ed.)

Title	Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2001
Publication Place	Stuttgart; Weimar
Publisher	J. B. Metzler
Volume	Band 11 Sam-Tal
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Huber Cancik , Helmuth Schneider
Translator(s)

Bände 1-12/II, Altertum - Nachweis der prägenden Einflüsse des Orients auf die griechisch-römische Kultur. Wirkung dieser Kultur auf Kelten, Germanen, Slawen, Araber, auf Judentum und Christentum; Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Sozialgeschichte, Privatleben in der Antike; die byzantinische Kultur; Entwicklungsgeschichte der philosophischen Begriffe; gleichrangige Behandlung der schriftlichen, bildlichen und dinglichen Zeugnisse. Mit einer Fülle von Abbildungen.

Online Resources

Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike, 2002
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Geerlings, Wilhelm (Ed.), Schulze, Christian (Ed.)

Title	Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2002
Published in	Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung
Pages	183-199
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian
Translator(s)

Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar wird für uns vom ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert an faßbar und verdankt seine Entstehung der wohlbekannten Tatsache, daß von diesem Zeitpunkt an in  allen  Philosophenschulen  der Antike  der  Unterricht mehr  und mehr die Form  einer Erklärung der Texte ihrer Schulgründer Platon, Aristoteles, Epikur und Chrysipp annimmt. Vorher wird es wohl nur  Erklärungen  zu  schwierigen  Stellen  gegeben  haben.  Von  den Kommentaren zu den Werken des Chrysipp ist nichts erhalten, aber wir wissen z.B. von dem Stoiker Epiktet, daß er in seinem Unterricht Chrysipp kommentierte, wie die Platoniker und Peripatetiker Platon und Aristoteles.  Es ist uns nur ein einziger fortlaufender Kommentar zu einem stoischen Text überliefert worden, der des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum 'Handbüchlein' des Epiktet, der aber natürlich nicht eine  stoische,  sondern  eine  neuplatonische Exegese des stoischen Textes liefert. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sbjj47InbPVG3Mz

Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 2003
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2003
Journal	Rhein. Museum
Volume	146
Issue	1
Pages	49–71
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts während der römischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich führten enge Beziehungen führender Römer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubertät, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der körperliche Verfall der freien Betätigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bCAQ9Hlrduneobp

Der spätantike Philosoph. Die Lebenswelten der paganen Gelehrten und ihre hagiographische Ausgestaltung in den Philosophenviten von Porphyrios bis Damaskios, 2018
By: Hartmann, Udo

Title	Der spätantike Philosoph. Die Lebenswelten der paganen Gelehrten und ihre hagiographische Ausgestaltung in den Philosophenviten von Porphyrios bis Damaskios
Type	Monograph
Language	undefined
Date	2018
Publication Place	Bonn
Publisher	Rudolf Habelt Verlag
Series	Antiquitas Reihe I
Volume	72.1-3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hartmann, Udo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus, 2012
By: Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2012
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	CNRS Éditions
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kVyktnhntO4rsCH

Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos, 2016
By: Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2016
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	CNRS Éditions
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Umso erfreulicher ist es, dass nun alle Artikel vorliegen. Auch der letzte Band des Dictionnaire erfüllt die in ihn gesteckten Erwartungen: In gewohnter Qualität werden hier die Philosophen von U bis Z vorgestellt. Doch bietet der von Goulet sorgfältig redigierte Band weitaus mehr:1 Nach der Liste der Autoren des Bandes und der Abkürzungen (S. 9–82)2 und einem ersten Lexikonsteil, in dem die Philosophen mit den Anfangsbuchstaben U, V, X und Z aufgeführt werden (S. 85–451), folgen im zweiten Teil „Compléments“ (S. 453–1018), also Supplementeinträge zu Philosophen von A bis T, die in den früheren Bänden nicht aufgenommen wurden, und Ergänzung zu bereits publizierten Artikeln, etwa zu Aristoteles oder Heraklit. Die beiden Anhänge im dritten Teil des Bandes (S. 1019–1174) stellen die bislang im Dictionnaire noch nicht besprochenen philosophischen Schulen vor: In der sehr knapp gehaltenen und mit nur wenigen Literaturhinweisen versehenen „Annexe I“ bespricht Marco Di Branco Lykeion, Stoa und Epikurs Garten sowie die neuplatonische Schule von Apameia (S. 1019–1024), wobei er sich auf die baulichen Strukturen konzentriert und kaum etwas zu den Institutionen sagt; in der umfangreichen „Annexe II“ („Compléments“ zu P 333. Pythagore de Samos, S. 1025–1174) stellt Constantinos Macris die Pythagoreer, ihre Lehren und die pythagoreischen Traditionen bis in die Spätantike sowie das Nachleben bis in die Frühe Neuzeit vor, wobei Macris in erster Linie die umfängliche Literatur zu den verschiedenen Aspekten zusammenstellt.3

Den Abschluss des Bandes bildet ein Epimetrum (S. 1175–1217), in dem Goulet in Tabellen, Diagrammen und Übersichten eine statistische Auswertung zu den antiken Philosophen vorlegt. Goulet betrachtet dabei die Zugehörigkeit zu den antiken Philosophenschulen, Herkunft, Ausbildungsort und Geschlecht und analysiert die Angaben auch in der Abfolge der Jahrhunderte. Die Aussagekraft der statistischen Ergebnisse erschließt sich dem Leser allerdings nicht immer, da Goulet zumeist keine Interpretation bietet. Was bedeutet es etwa, wenn 19 Prozent aller bekannten Philosophen Platoniker und 8 Prozent Epikureer waren? Was heißt es, dass mit 105 Inschriften die meisten epigraphischen Zeugnisse für Philosophen aus dem 2. Jahrhundert stammen (gefolgt von 43 im 1. Jahrhundert)? Was bedeutet es, dass unter den Philosophinnen im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. die meisten Frauen Pythagoreerinnen (12) waren (gefolgt von 8 Epikureerinnen im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.)? Die Register (S. 1219–1465) erschließen die Eigennamen (und geben – wenn vorhanden – den prosopographischen Eintrag fett an), Namen und Begriffe aus den Werktiteln der antiken Philosophen sowie die Kommentare, Paraphrasen und antiken Übersetzungen zu philosophischen Werken aus allen Bänden des Dictionnaire. Die drei Register ermöglichen nun also eine hervorragende Orientierung in diesem umfangreichen Nachschlagewerk.

Im ersten Teil des siebenten Bandes werden alle bekannten Philosophen von Ulpianos von Gaza (Goulet, U 1, S. 85), einem Kommilitonen des Proklos in Alexandreia, bis zum Plotin-Schüler Zotikos (Luc Brisson, Z 44, S. 451) betrachtet. Die umfangreichsten Beiträge sind dabei den bekannten Philosophen gewidmet, so dem spätantiken Platoniker und Theologen Marius Victorinus (Lenka Karfíková, V 14, S. 153–166), zu dem ausführlich die Thesen über mögliche Einflüsse des Plotin, des Porphyrios, der Mittelplatoniker und der Neuplatoniker nach Porphyrios auf sein Denken vorgestellt werden, dem Vorsokratiker Xenophanes (Dominique Arnould / Goulet, X 15, S. 211–219), dem Schulhaupt der Akademie Xenokrates (Margherita Isnardi Parente, X 10, S. 194–208), dem Sokratiker Xenophon (Louis-André Dorion / Jörn Lang, X 19, S. 227–290), in dessen Eintrag auch der ‚Alte Oligarch‘ kurz besprochen wird, dem Eleaten Zenon (Daniel de Smet, Z 19, S. 346–363) sowie dem Begründer der Stoa, Zenon von Kition (Jean-Baptiste Gourinat / Lang, Z 20, S. 364–396). Dan Dana stellt das legendäre Material zum Geten Zalmoxis, dem Sklaven und Schüler des Pythagoras, vor (Z 3, S. 317–322). Aber auch in diesem Band finden sich neben den Philosophen wieder viele Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen: Lange Artikel erörtern so Leben und Werk sowie philosophische Beeinflussungen des Universalgelehrten M. Terentius Varro, der in Athen studiert hat (Yves Lehmann, V 5, S. 94–133), des Dichters Vergil (Régine Chambert, V 10, S. 136–147), dessen Bildungsweg ausführlich nachgezeichnet wird, des Theologen Zacharias Rhetor (Frédéric Alpi, Z 1, S. 301–308), dessen polemische Schriften gegen pagane Neuplatoniker genauer vorgestellt werden4, sowie des Alchemisten Zosimos von Panopolis (Matteo Martelli, Z 42, 447–450), der auch eine Platon-Vita verfaßt haben soll.5 Neben diesen prominenten Namen vereint der siebente Band aber auch wieder zahlreiche kaum bekannte Philosophen und viele nur an wenigen Stellen in philosophischen Werken erwähnte, schattenhafte Gelehrte wie den Skeptiker Xeniades von Korinth (Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, X 4, S. 189f.), den Diadochen Zenodotos an der Athener Schule aus dem späten 5. Jahrhundert, dessen Scholarchat Goulet jedoch bezweifelt (Z 10, S. 341f.)6, den Juden und Proklos-Schüler Zenon von Alexandreia (Goulet, Z 18, S. 345)7 oder den Stoiker Zenothemis, eine erfundene Gestalt aus einem Dialog Lukians (Patrick Robiano, Z 26, S. 417f.). Aufgenommen wurden schließlich einige nur epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen und philosophierende Beamte wie der von Goulet als Epikureer gedeutete Ritter und praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae L. Valerius Valerianus signo Dardanius (V 2, S. 89f.)8, der Stoiker P. Avianius Valerius (V 3, S. 90), der laut Bernadette Puech im 2. Jahrhundert im mysischen Hadrianoi wirkte9, der Platoniker Zosimos oder der Athener Stoiker Zosimianos (Puech, Z 41, S. 447; Z 43, S. 450).10

Im Supplementteil werden ebenfalls einige bekannte Philosophen besprochen, der ausführlichste Beitrag ist indes Pythagoras gewidmet (P 333, S. 681–884): Detailliert erörtert Macris hier die biographischen Traditionen über Pythagoras vom Zeitgenossen Xenophanes über die hellenistischen Viten bis zu Iamblichs Pythagoras-Schrift, die ikonographischen Zeugnisse sowie die Berichte über Pythagoras’ Leben, Schule und Lehren. Macris erschließt zudem in geradezu enzyklopädischer Weise die Literatur zu allen Aspekten (S. 681–850).11 Ergänzt wird diese Beitrag von einer Analyse der gnomologischen Tradition durch Katarzyna Prochenko (S. 851–860) sowie der syrischen und arabischen Überlieferung durch Anna Izdebska (S. 860–884). Etwas künstlich wirkt indes die Auslagerung der Besprechung der Pythagoreer durch Macris in die bereits erwähnte „Annexe II“, läßt sich die Tradition doch kaum scharf in Berichte über Pythagoras und über die Pythagoreer und deren Lehren trennen. Ausführliche Beiträge stellen zudem den Theologen und Exegeten Didymos den Blinden (Marco Zambon, D 106a, S. 485–513), den Theologen Gregor von Nyssa und sein Verhältnis zur Philosophie (Matthieu Cassin, G 34a, S. 534–571), den Pythagoreer Philolaos (Macris, P 143, S. 637–667) und den Sokratiker Simmias von Theben (Macris, S 86, S. 904–933) vor. Aber auch im Supplementteil finden sich viele in den früheren Bänden übersehene, wenig bekannte Philosophen, die oft bloße Namen bleiben, halblegendäre Personen wie Themistokleia, eine Priesterin aus Delphi und ‚Lehrerin‘ des Pythagoras (Macris, T 39a, S. 963–965), sowie erfundene, literarische Gestalten wie die sicherlich fiktiven Dialogpartner Aigyptos und Euxitheos im Theophrastos des Aineas von Gaza (Goulet, A 59a, S. 456; E 182a, 525).12 Ergänzt werden im Supplementteil zudem einige lediglich epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen wie T. Coponius Maximus (Puech, M 72a, S. 607–608), einige philosophieinteressierte Gelehrte wie der Mediziner Magnos von Nisibis (Richard Goulet / Véronique Boudon-Millot, M 13a, S. 584–588) sowie bildungsbeflissene Beamte wie der comes Orientis Iulianus, den Libanios als Philosoph beschreibt (epist. 1261, 4–5; Goulet, I 43a, S. 579), oder der praefectus Augustalis Pentadios (Goulet, P 78a, S. 633).13 Der Sophist und Hermogenes-Kommentator Euagoras wurde von Goulet ergänzt, da Syrianus ihn als Philosophen qualifiziert (E 182b, S. 525).14 Bislang unbeachtet blieb in allen Prosopographien der bei Pappos von Alexandreia erwähnte ‚Philosoph‘ Hierios, der im frühen 4. Jahrhundert in Alexandreia Mathematik unterrichtete (Goulet, H 119a, S. 578).15 Ob allerdings der auch als Schriftsteller tätige Augustus seinen knappen Eintrag im Supplementteil des Philosophenlexikons wirklich verdient hat (Yasmina Benferhat, O 7a, S. 626), kann man sicher bezweifeln.

Auch der siebente und letzte Band des Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques erfasst somit in hervorragender Weise das Quellenmaterial und die Forschungen zu den Philosophen von U bis Z und bietet im Supplementteil wichtige Ergänzungen zu den bislang erschienenen Bänden, deren Inhalt nun auch durch das umfängliche Gesamtregister erfasst werden kann. Der gut gebundene und relativ preiswerte Band sollte daher in keiner altertumswissenschaftlichen Bibliothek fehlen. Man kann den Autoren der Beiträge und allen voran dem Herausgeber Goulet nur für ihre sorgfältige und hervorragende Arbeit danken, dank der nun nach knapp drei Jahrzehnten ein ausgezeichnetes Nachschlagewerk vorliegt, das die Welt der antiken Philosophen vollständig erschließt.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tuaXpGlzy0XByyW

Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?, 2001
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de

Title	Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	46
Issue	4
Pages	492-526
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yjxJiXgPDTM8LDJ

Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?, 2010
By: Morison, Benjamin

Title	Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	55
Issue	1
Pages	68-103
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Morison, Benjamin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no  reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of  them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GbvOxzvRrwDkAHd

Title	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2018
Publication Place	Berlin – Boston
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Philosophie der Antike
Volume	36
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR

Title	Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3)
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2018
Publication Place	Basel
Publisher	Schwabe
Volume	5/3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Riedweg, Christoph , Horn, Christoph , Wyrwa, Dietmar
Translator(s)

Mehr als fünfzig international auf ihrem Gebiet führende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler präsentieren in diesem fünften und letzten Band der Reihe «Die Philosophie der Antike» das überaus facettenreiche pagane, jüdische und frühchristliche philosophische Erbe der ersten sieben Jahrhunderte nach Christus – einer Periode, in der die Grundlagen nicht nur der abendländischen und byzantinischen, sondern auch der islamischen Denktradition gelegt worden sind. Mit den detaillierten und umfassenden Darstellungen, die den neuesten Stand der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung reflektieren, zielt das Werk darauf ab, für die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike zur ersten Anlaufstelle für Forschende der Altertumswissenschaften, aber auch der Theologie, der Philosophie, der Judaistik und der Islamwissenschaft sowie allgemein der Geisteswissenschaften zu werden.

Der Disposition liegt die Überzeugung zugrunde, dass mit der paganen und der jüdisch-christlichen Philosophie nicht etwa zwei große weltanschauliche Blöcke gegeneinander abzugrenzen und somit isoliert zu betrachten sind, sondern dass es angemessener ist, diese in ihrem lebendigen Austausch miteinander darzustellen. Entsprechend wurde für den Bandaufbau ein Mischprinzip gewählt, bei dem die chronologische Folge die zentrale Rolle spielt, zudem aber auch das Lehrer-Schüler-Verhältnis, die Schulzugehörigkeit eines Autors und schließlich ebenfalls seine religiöse Orientierung und seine geografische Situierung berücksichtigt werden. So gelingt es, die zum Teil überraschenden Interdependenzen zwischen Autoren und Schulen, die durchaus religionsübergreifend festzustellen sind, deutlicher herauszuarbeiten. Die faszinierende, bis heute in unserer Kultur stark nachwirkende Epoche wird auf diese Art äußerst plastisch beschrieben und für die Gegenwart erschlossen.

Online Resources

Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie, 2002
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Kobusch, Theo (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)

Title	Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2002
Published in	Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg
Pages	323-342
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Kobusch, Theo , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)

Der Epiktetkommentar ist dazu  bestimmt,  dem Leser die  sittlichen Grundhaltungen zu vermitteln,  ohne die es  für ihn  nicht  förderlich ist, ein Studium der Philosophie zu beginnen. Da es sich somit um eine allgemein gehaltene Einführung handelt, die den Erwerb der bürgerlichen Tugenden mit Hilfe der neuplatonischen Kommentierung des Handbüchleins des  Epiktet  zum Ziel  hat wird  im Verfolg des zu kommentierenden Textes eine breite Palette von philosophischen Fragen  kurz  angesprochen,  ohne  in  die  Tiefen  des  philosophischen  Systems vorzudringen.  Es  ist  daher unerlässlich,  bei  der  Interpretierung  des Epiktetkommentars über die traditionellen neuplatonischen Lehren informiert zu  sein,  wenn man  den  dogmatischen  Hintergrund  der  Darlegungen  des  Simplikios  erfassen will: Die  Aneignung  der  ersten  Stufe  des  neuplatonischen Tugendkanons,  der politischen  Tugenden,  die  erklärterweise  das Ziel  des Kommentars  zum  Handbüchlein  des  Epiktet  ist,  geht mit der Ausübung  der Kultriten  einher,  wenn  sie  wohl  auch  im  allgemeinen  zur Zeit  des  Simplikios  nur  noch  im  privaten  Rahmen  stattfinden  konnten.  Es  gibt keine  Anhaltspunkte  dafür,  daß  Simplikios eine  im  Vergleich  zu  Jamblich,  Hierokles  und  Proklos  abweichende  Haltung  gegenüber  dem  Verhältnis  der  Philosophie  zu  Religion  und  Theurgie  eingenommen  hätte,  d.h.  daß,  bei  aller  Wichtigkeit und Unerlässlichkeit der Theurgie, auch für  ihn die  Philosophie  mit  ihrer rationalen  Erfassung  der metaphysischen Themen eine  unabdingbare  Voraussetzung bleibt. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0gw38rZ6TRENJZm

Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein Überblick mit ausgewählten Literaturangaben, 2007
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein Überblick mit ausgewählten Literaturangaben
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2007
Journal	Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie
Volume	32
Issue	1
Pages	51-79
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Ein typisches Beispiel für einen systematisch anspruchsvoll argumentierenden Kommentar, auf den viele der hier genannten Merkmale zutreffen, ist der De anima-Kommentar des Neuplatonikers Priskian von Lydien, eines Zeitgenossen und Bekannten des Damaskios und Simplikios um 530. Der Autor setzt es sich zu Beginn seines Kommentars ausdrücklich zum Ziel, sich bei der Auslegung des aristotelischen Textes und der Klärung der hierbei bestehenden Zweifel nach Möglichkeit an die sachliche Wahrheit (alētheia tōn pragmatōn) zu halten. Dabei will er diese nicht einfach aus dem Text ableiten, sondern orientiert sich bewusst an der Seelenlehre Jamblichs (3. Jh.), des eigentlichen Begründers des spätneuplatonischen Systems (1, 18–20).

Diese Zugangsweise stellt den Kommentator freilich vor schwierige inhaltliche Probleme: Zum einen gilt es, Aristoteles’ Seelenlehre richtig zu verstehen, die davon ausgeht, dass die Seele schlichtweg das Lebensprinzip des menschlichen Körpers und eben dadurch definiert ist. Andererseits muss Priskian den Intentionen Jamblichs gerecht werden, dessen Neuplatonismus der Transzendenz auch des menschlichen Geistes und damit einer Art Leib-Seele-Dualismus verpflichtet bleibt.

Um beiden Ansprüchen genügen zu können, entwickelt der Kommentator eine komplexe Theorie der menschlichen Seele, die das neuplatonische Menschenbild nicht unwesentlich variiert und verfeinert: Erstens führt Priskian in den für Aristoteles’ Seelenlehre zentralen Begriff der Entelechie bzw. Formursache eine Unterscheidung zwischen einer Formursächlichkeit als Gestaltprinzip des leib-seelischen Wesens und einer Formursächlichkeit als dessen Bewegungsprinzip ein (4,12–5,5). Das letztere Prinzip findet Priskian in Aristoteles’ Aussage, der Geist könne möglicherweise auch so im Körper sein wie ein Schiffer auf einem Schiff (De anima II 1, 413a 6–9).

Für Priskian gibt es die Unterschiedenheit zwischen formender und bewegender Entelechie jedoch nicht nur (und nicht in erster Linie, wie noch deutlich werden wird) auf der Ebene der rationalen Seele bzw. des menschlichen Nous, sondern auch auf den Seelenstufen des Vegetativen und des Sensitiven, wobei beim Vegetativen der formende Charakter stark überwiegt.

Für die Ebene des Nous reicht diese Differenzierung jedoch nicht aus; denn auch ein Bewegungsprinzip ist nach neuplatonischer Vorstellung als solches notwendig mit dem Körper verbunden, während es für den aristotelischen Nous ganz unangemessen ist, dass er überhaupt in irgendeiner notwendigen Verbindung zum Körper steht (227,6–32). Priskian antwortet mit einer feingliedrigen Differenzierung des Nous-Begriffs, wobei die Einheit und Vielheit der verschiedenen unterschiedenen Stufen mit Hilfe der neuplatonischen Idee einer triadischen Dynamik des Geistigen verstanden werden muss.

Grundlegend ist der Gedanke, dass der Nous im Menschen, verstanden als sein alltägliches, gleichsam empirisches Selbst, sich entweder ganz von der Verbindung mit Körperlichem lösen und sich dem bloßen Denken zuwenden oder aber durch die eingegangene Verbindung mit dem Körper nur potentiell zu einem derartigen Denken befähigt sein kann. Priskian schildert diesen Gegensatz jedoch nicht nur, wie andere Neuplatoniker, als eine bloße Wahlmöglichkeit der rationalen Seele zwischen einer Wendung nach oben – zum Geistigen – oder nach unten – zum Körperlichen –, sondern er stellt ihn als eine Zuwendung der Seele zu ihrem eigentlichen, idealen Selbst dar, das als transzendentales Subjekt ihres Denkens zu gelten hat und damit das Denken eigentlich erst „bewirkt“ (das ist seine Interpretation des aristotelischen aktiven Geistes).

Dieses ideale Selbst ist aber nicht, wie Plotin annimmt, völlig konstant, sondern es entwickelt und verändert sich zusammen mit der Ebene unseres alltäglichen Denkens, das erst durch eine Rückwendung zum Geistigen auch eine volle Wiederherstellung seines transzendentalen Selbst bewirken kann (220,2–25; 240,2–241,26). Unser Geist ist daher „von sich selbst entfremdet“ (allotriōthen heautou; 223,26), und unser Leben eine dauerhafte Suche nach der Wiedergewinnung der Einheit von empirischem und idealem Selbst.

Diese kann erreicht werden durch eine Selbsterkenntnis, bei der sich das empirische Selbst als sein ideales Selbst erkennt und zu diesem wird; um diesen Prozess zu erklären, wendet Priskian die neuplatonische Idee einer geistigen Bewegung aus Bleiben, Hervorgehen und Zurückkehren (monē, prohodos, epistrophē) auf den menschlichen Geist an, was hier nicht im Detail nachvollzogen werden kann.

Dieser sehr grobe Überblick über einen ebenso scharfsinnigen wie schwierigen und voraussetzungsreichen Text zeigt in besonders extremer Form, mit welchen systematischen Interessen nicht wenige Kommentatoren an ihre Texte herantraten; häufig lässt sich im kommentierten Text allenfalls der Anlass erkennen, der den Kommentator dazu führt, seine eigenen systematischen Fragen am autoritativ verstandenen Vorlagetext abzuhandeln, was entweder zu einem besseren Verständnis des Textes oder – wie im gerade diskutierten Fall – zu einer Bereicherung der zeitgenössischen Diskussion führt, von der auch der heutige Leser profitieren kann, wenn er bereit ist, den häufig mühsamen Weg zum Verständnis eines Kommentators zu gehen. [introduction p. 52-53]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pSf0FMkBh5xKMAw

Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione, 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2001
Publication Place	Wiesbaden
Publisher	Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag
Series	Serta Graeca. Beiträge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte
Volume	12
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In seiner Schrift „De generatione et corruptione“ entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch – und dies im angelsächsischen Sinne des Wortes – das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes „genesthai“ zu klären und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einführung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.
Die philosophische Überlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und – unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen – um das Verhältnis Gottes zu seinen Geschöpfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die große Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und später auf die Physiker-Ärzte Süditaliens ausgeübt hat. Und man denke schließlich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache überliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausgeübt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form münden kann.
Auch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdrücklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der größten islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts geführt.
Der Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen Übersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zurückgeht, dass die süditalienischen Ärzte es nicht versäumt haben, sich unverzüglich die vielfältigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version übersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, – dass übrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit Süditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden können, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten –, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.
Der Autor liefert mit seiner Überlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das für eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerläßliche Stemma. Er führt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befaßt. Nur die Überlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE

Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich, 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Pages	43-53
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E während der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn überhaupt. Für die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis.

Doch gibt es, auch wenn die spätere Geschichte des Paris. sehr rätselhaft ist, gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili "Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1–76) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte.

Es liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librería Privata gehörte: "It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492)." Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umständen die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. Möglicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht.

Die spätere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu

Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes, 2001
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2001
Published in	Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione
Pages	315-350
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Textträger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu berücksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verständnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Hauptträgern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1.

Einige Aspekte der indirekten Überlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit hängt die syrisch-arabische Übersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebräische Übertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskräftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte für die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander.

Noch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbezüglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zurück, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, nämlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vinä. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd

Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie, 2013
By: Rousseau, Philippe

Title	Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2013
Publication Place	Lille
Publisher	Presses universitaires du Septentrion
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rousseau, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Figure critique majeure des études de philologie classique en Italie, Diego Lanza a renouvelé en profondeur l'approche des œuvres de la littérature grecque ancienne. Ses travaux conjuguent un intérêt, partiellement hérité de la philologie historique, pour l'histoire de la tradition, avec une analyse, inspirée notamment de Marx et de Gramsci, de la fonction des textes anciens comme instruments de médiation idéologique, interrogeant ainsi conjointement le passé et le présent des appropriations culturelles. Les problématiques de l'anthropologie occupent une place privilégiée dans sa lecture de l’Antiquité, mais leur espace de référence n’est pas celui de l’anthropologie structurale, de la psychologie historique ou de la critique symbolique de l’école française. C’est plutôt l’étude du folklore, où l’analyse de la culture populaire est orientée par un intérêt spécifique pour les antagonismes qui la structurent. Les essais réunis dans ce volume reviennent sur les objets auxquels Diego Lanza s’est intéressé – poésie archaïque (Homère), théâtre classique (Euripide, Aristophane), philosophie « présocratique » et classique (Anaxagore, Aristote), histoire de la philologie – et dans la diversité de leurs points de vue, esquissent un bilan des aspects les plus significatifs d’une œuvre scientifique originale et stimulante.
[author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LY1f6edLjdTkqq3

Diogenes revisited, 2008
By: Laks, André

Title	Diogenes revisited
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in
Pages	281-290
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant—some publishing companies obviously think that the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised.

It is all the more noteworthy that Graham (2006) has made Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real initiator of the doctrine of “Material Monism” (chap. 10). I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution on this point is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism for an Anaximenean pluralism, which is Graham’s paradoxical point (see above, p. 70).

In what follows, I just want to restate briefly what seem to me to be the two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology. The second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 281-282]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q5b1PHFAeBZnhpa

Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages, 2008
By: Laks, André

Title	Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2008
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	International Pre-Platonic Studies
Volume	6
Edition No.	2 (1st 1983)
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Depuis la première édition de ce livre, Diogène d'Apollonie, un des derniers "physiciens" présocratiques, longtemps dévalorisé par la réputation d' "éclectique" que H. Diels avait attachée à son nom dans un article de 1881, a suscité un regain d'intérêt.

Cette seconde édition d'un ouvrage qui reste à ce jour le seul commentaire exhaustif des fragments et des témoignages de Diogène, a été revue et corrigée, mais elle prend aussi en compte, dans une série d'ajouts marqués comme tels, les travaux parus au cours des vint-cinq années écoulées. Le livre retrace l'histoire de la transmission des fragments de Diogène, analyse les positions de la critique moderne depuis l'article séminal de F. Schleiermacher (1811), et offre, pour chacun des douze fragments et des quelques trente-six témoignages, dont un nouveau classement est proposé, une analyse visant à reconstruire la logique de l'original perdu.

Quatre des Notes additionnelles abordent des problèmes spécifiques, qui requéraient un traitement séparé. Une cinquième, en anglais, offre une présentation synthétique de l'interprétation ici défendue, qui situe l'importance de Diogène dans son rapport à Anaxagore et à sa doctrine de l' "intellect". [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/l5eQc4K0fWglpHt

Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity, 2011
By: Chase, Michael

Title	Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2011
Journal	ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition
Volume	5
Issue	2
Pages	111-173
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ufpZP6w4wwJDnXs

Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430–c. 550 C.E.), 2011
By: Watts, Edward Jay

Title	Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430–c. 550 C.E.)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2011
Journal	Classical Philology
Volume	106
Issue	3
Pages	226-244
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, Edward Jay
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Academy of Xenocrates, Platonists shaped themselves into an intellectual
community held together by doctrinal commonalities, a shared history, and
defined personal relationships. 3 As the Hellenistic world developed and
Platonism spread beyond its Athenian center, doctrine, history, and social
ties stopped being conterminous. Platonists remained connected by a shared
intellectual genealogy, but Platonism’s social and doctrinal aspects became decentralized as individual schools with their own interests grew up in vari-
ous cities. 4 Although no direct institutional connection joined them to the
Academy, late antique Platonists saw themselves as part of an old philosophi-
cal lineage that reached back to Plato. 5 In their schools, the history of an
individual circle’s past mingled with that of the larger intellectual tradition it
claimed to have inherited. This amalgamated tradition was handed down from
teachers to students in personal conversations that had a number of important,
community-building effects. They attracted students to Platonic philosophy,
encouraged them to identify with the movement’s past leaders, and influ-
enced their ideas and actions once they joined a specific group. As this paper
will show, the Platonic circles that these men and women formed were then
defined as much by the relationships they formed and by the behaviors they
exhibited as by the doctrines they espoused. [introduction p. 226-227]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rilfF7I9t8ywGlp

Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschenbild in “Simplikios”’ Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ De anima, 2003
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschenbild in “Simplikios”’ Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ De anima
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2003
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	24
Issue	1
Pages	57-91
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Auf der einen Seite steht nicht ein Stück Materie, sondern ein Lebewesen in der Art eines belebten Körpers, bei dessen Formung Körperliches und Seelisches bereits eine Einheit eingegangen sind, auf der anderen Seite eine Seele, die als die, die sie ist, wesentlich auf die Benutzung dieses Leibes ausgerichtet ist. Dabei ist der Leib von der bloßen Materie ebenso verschieden wie die bewegende Seele vom transzendenten nous, in dem sie ursprünglich wurzelt. Erst im Tod gewinnen nous und Materie wieder ihre Selbständigkeit zurück.

Diese Darstellung zeigt, wie „Simplikios“ systematisch mit Aristoteles umgeht: Die Terminologie des Stagiriten integriert er nicht nur in seine eigene philosophische Konzeption, sondern er kann mithilfe dieser Terminologie eine logisch und sachlich konsistente und gut nachvollziehbare Fassung der neuplatonischen Seelenlehre entwickeln. Damit erweist sich die Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles für den neuplatonischen Autor als fruchtbar, ohne dass er sachlich die Grenzen des Neuplatonismus überschreitet.

Im neuplatonischen Kontext ist es besonders interessant, dass „Simplikios“ in den beiden Formen von entelecheia durchgehende Charakteristika des Seelischen in der Art sieht, dass jede einzelne Seelenart den Leib in der genannten doppelten Weise verwirklicht. Denn mit der Annahme zweier Arten der Einwirkung der Seele auf den Körper entspricht er einer Struktur, die sich bereits bei Plotin entfaltet findet:

Der Leib, mit dem sich die Seele vereinigt, ist bereits durch eine Spur oder ein Bild der Seele auf deren Aufnahme vorbereitet. Bei der Interpretation dieser Stellen wird meistens angenommen, dass dieses „Bild“ der vegetativen Seele entspricht, die von der höheren Seele verschieden ist. Diese Identifizierung wurde jüngst von Ch. Tornau unter Verweis auf Enn. IV 4, 20, 22–5; VI 4, 15, 15 in Zweifel gezogen.

Bei „Simplikios“ zeigt sich nun klar, dass dieses Seelenbild ebenso wie die bewegende Formursache, die eigentliche Seele, in jeder einzelnen Seelenart vorhanden ist. Damit wird Tornaus Vermutung zumindest für einen neuplatonischen Autor bestätigt. An diesem Punkt, der für die Systematik des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes überhaupt von Bedeutung ist, ist weitere Forschung nötig, um zu mehr Klarheit über die im Neuplatonismus übliche Lehre und die Abweichungen davon zu gelangen.

Das von „Simplikios“ entworfene Bild zeigt, dass die menschliche Seele im späten Neuplatonismus nicht als unsystematische Nebeneinanderstellung verschiedener, mehr oder weniger zwanghaft triadisch geordneter Schichten zu verstehen ist, sondern dass die Philosophen dieser Zeit im Rahmen der Voraussetzungen, die sie für selbstverständlich hielten, ein klares Bild der gegenseitigen Bezogenheit von Seele und Leib entwickeln konnten.

Die Einheit zwischen Körper und Seele, wie „Simplikios“ sie schildert, ist keineswegs so locker, wie es manche Überblickswerke zum Neuplatonismus nahelegen: Die Seele, die in der materiellen Welt wirkt und erkennt, ist wesentlich mit dem Körper verbunden und kann ohne diese Verbindung nicht existieren. [conclusion p. 90-91]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/egqTFHmjZlWVg7v

Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus, 2003
By: Baltussen, Han, Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2003
Published in	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Pages	49-71
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look.

The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making."

The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.

The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s.

In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.

Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.

I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza

El extraño criterio utilizado para crear "la Doxa" de Parménides, 2021
By: Néstor-Luis Cordero

Title	El extraño criterio utilizado para crear "la Doxa" de Parménides
Type	Article
Language	Spanish
Date	2021
Journal	Dianoia
Volume	66
Issue	87
Pages	141-151
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Néstor-Luis Cordero
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In 1795 G.G. Fülleborn, a philologist of Kantian origin, grouped in two "parts" the recovered fragments of the Poem of Parmenides -"the Truth" and "the Doxa". With small modifications, this structure became classic and is accepted unanimously today. However, a reading of each fragment in an isolated way does not justify such division, which is based on an interpretation of Simplicius influenced by Aristotle, who finds already in Parmenides a sketch of the Platonic dualism between the "sensible" and the "intelligible", not actually present in the latter. This work analyzes critically the criterion used by Fülleborn, which is anachronistic in the case of a preplatonic thinker. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MC7go0ESvT7PDWp

El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno", 2014
By: Gardella, Mariana

Title	El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno"
Type	Article
Language	Spanish
Date	2014
Journal	Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad del Norte
Volume	23
Pages	157-181
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gardella, Mariana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno’s objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno’s philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Refutations and mainly Metaphysics Hi. 4. 1001b7-I3 (DK 29 A 21). I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno’s philosophy (In Ph. 99.7-18, DK 29 A 21; 138. 3-6, DK 29 A 22). [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YSCgmZjhBUMltzI

Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity, 2024
By: Anna Motta (Ed.), Christopher Kurfess (Ed.)

Title	Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2024
Publication Place	Napoli
Publisher	Federico II University Press
Series	Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Scuola delle Scienze Umane e Sociali Quaderni
Edition No.	29
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Anna Motta , Christopher Kurfess
Translator(s)

Thus, both the profundity of Parmenides’ thought and the rich verbal density of his poetry pose challenges to modern scholars—just as they did to his ancient readers. These challenges were felt particularly keenly in later antiquity—a period of focus in the present collection of essays—when doing justice to the authority of the ancients obligated commentators to reconcile a long and complex tradition of sometimes incompatible interpretative commitments. Certain Neoplatonists (in)famously “harmonized” points of possible tension by allowing that the Presocratics, though not far from the truth, employed enigmatic and ambiguous language, whereas Plato conveyed the truth in a clearer and more appropriate way. In this manner, the Presocratics, Parmenides among them, could be saved from apparent errors, and their unique conceptions and terminology could be incorporated within a Neoplatonic philosophical framework.

The “Eleatic school” is commonly understood to include Parmenides, his fellow citizen Zeno, and Melissus of Samos. (Traditionally, Xenophanes of Colophon had also been included, his views about divinity seen as anticipating Parmenides’ account of Being.) Parmenides and his two pupils are distinguished by their concern with methods of proof and for conceiving Being as a unitary substance, which is also immobile, unchangeable, and indivisible. The Eleatics began a series of reflections on the relation between demonstration and reality that eventually developed into Socratic and Platonic dialectic, and Plato’s portrait has played a decisive role in the subsequent reception of Eleatic ideas. Since Plato’s Sophist, Parmenides has been almost as famous for apparent inconsistencies as for the rigid dicta that seemed to land him in them. Moreover, in the Parmenides, which dramatically presents Parmenides and Zeno conversing in Athens with a very young Socrates (Prm. 127a–b), Plato subjects his own characteristic doctrine to critique by his Eleatic predecessors, thereby initiating a tradition of critical examination of Eleatic ontology that would last until Late Antiquity and beyond. Plato’s dialogues exhibit such a profound engagement with Eleatic thought that Eleatic ontology can be regarded as the hidden foundation of Platonic metaphysics.

Of course, Plato and the Platonic tradition are only part of the story, and the present collection seeks, with no pretense of being exhaustive, to provide a representative survey of the reception of Eleatic ontology during the Hellenistic and late ancient periods. The essays included offer fresh perspectives on crucial points in that reception, reveal points of contact and instances of mutual interaction between competing traditions, and allow readers to reflect on the revolutionary new conceptions that thinkers of these eras developed in the course of the continuing confrontation with the venerable figure of Parmenides and the challenges posed by his thought. This volume is a collaborative effort by an international array of scholars, reflecting a range of outlooks and approaches, and exploring some of the various forms taken by the reception of Parmenides’ ontology. Some of the essays were invited by the editors; others were selected by blind review from submissions made in response to a call for papers.

The arrangement of essays is roughly chronological. In chapter 1, “Being at Play: Naming and Non-Naming in the Anonymous De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia,” Christopher Kurfess considers the way that names are handled in a curious document transmitted as part of the Aristotelian corpus, noting its continuities with earlier instances of the reception of Eleatic thought. In chapter 2, “Healthy, Immutable, and Beautiful: Eleatic Pantheism and Epicurean Theology,” Enrico Piergiacomi reconstructs an Epicurean view of, and response to, a pantheistic Parmenidean theology. In chapter 3, “Dualism and Platonism: Plutarch’s Parmenides,” Carlo Delle Donne introduces us to Plutarch’s Platonism, reading Parmenides as a forerunner of Plato in both ontology and the account of the sensible world. In chapter 4, “Clement of Alexandria and the Eleatization of Xenophanes,” William H.F. Altman focuses on Clement of Alexandria’s role in preserving several key theological fragments of Xenophanes and invites us to reconsider modern scholars’ dismissal of both Xenophanes’ status as an Eleatic and Clement’s claim of Greek philosophy’s debt to Hebrew Scripture. In chapter 5, “Parmenides’ Philosophy through Plato’s Parmenides in Origen of Alexandria,” Ilaria L.E. Ramelli explores the reception of Parmenides’ thought in Origen, one of the main exponents of patristic philosophy. In chapter 6, “Platonism and Eleaticism,” Lloyd P. Gerson provides an analysis of the appropriation of Eleatic philosophy by Plato and the Platonists, with a particular focus on Plotinus. In chapter 7, “Augustine and Eleatic Ontology,” Giovanni Catapano illustrates the general aspects and the essential contents of Augustinian ontology as they relate to distinctive theses of the Eleatics. In chapter 8, “Proclus and the Overcoming of Eleaticism without Parricide,” Anna Motta investigates the debt that Plato incurred with the Eleatics according to Proclus. In chapter 9, “Why Rescue Parmenides? On Zeno’s Ontology in Simplicius,” Marc-Antoine Gavray examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. [introduction p. 7-9]

Online Resources

Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy, 2005
By: Henry, Devin

Title	Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	50
Issue	1
Pages	1-42
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Henry, Devin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Historically embryogenesis has been among the most philosophically intriguing phenomena. In this paper I focus on one aspect of biological development that was particularly perplexing to the ancients: self-organisation. For many ancients, the fact that an organism determines the important features of its own development required a special model for understanding how this was possible. This was especially true for Aristotle, Alexander, and Simplicius, who all looked to contemporary technology to supply that model. However, they did not all agree on what kind of device should be used. In this paper I explore the way these ancients made use of technology as a model for the developing embryo. I argue that their different choices of device reveal fundamental differences in the way each thinker understood the nature of biological development itself. In the final section of the paper I challenge the traditional view (dating back to Alexander’s interpretation of Aristotle) that the use of automata in GA can simply be read off from their use in the de motu. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1E80hY0xXEIYf7e

Empedocles' Life Cycles, 2005
By: Sedley, David N., Pierrēs, Apostolos L. (Ed.)

Title	Empedocles' Life Cycles
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers
Pages	331-371
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sedley, David N.
Editor(s)	Pierrēs, Apostolos L.
Translator(s)

It was once the policy of scholars to keep these two cycles firmly segregated, certainly in different poems and, if possible, in separate and irreconcilable areas of Empedocles' thought: one scientific, the other religious. That old separatist policy was already all but extinct when, in 1998, a newly discovered papyrus containing portions of Empedocles’ On Nature was published by Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, putting the final nail in its coffin. For there, the daimonic cycle was to be found in the immediate context of Empedocles’ physics.

If we are to make adequate sense of Empedocles’ zoogony—his theory of the origins of life—it must include the creation of these daimons. Contrary to a common scholarly assumption, the daimons are themselves flesh-and-blood organisms, not mere transmigrating souls or spirits. Indeed, their sin of meat-eating would have been quite hard to perform if they had not been.

The following view, and variants of it, are widely held about Empedocles’ aetiology of life forms. He posits two zoogonies: one governed by Love, the other by Strife. The zoogony of Love occurs in a phase of increasing Love, which eventually leads to the world’s conversion into the perfectly homogeneous sphairos. The zoogony of Strife occurs in a phase of increasing Strife, which eventually leads to the total separation of the four elementary bodies or ‘roots.’ And it is this latter world that Empedocles considered himself to inhabit.

A major obstacle to this widespread (though by no means unanimous) picture lies in Empedocles’ concentration on Love’s zoogony, to the almost total exclusion of Strife’s. When it comes to the emergence of species, it is again and again what our evidence informs us to be the zoogony of increasing Love that is described, as we shall see amply confirmed in due course. As to Strife’s zoogony, we have nothing but an isolated description in B62 of the first stage of the process by which, under growing Strife, men and women were created. The fragment is further summarized and expanded by Aetius (below, pp. 337-38) and now helpfully supported by a cross-reference in the Strasbourg fragments (d10-14). But despite this additional material, and the probability that trees too were included, there is not so much as a word about the generation, under Strife, of any other animal species known to us.

Thus, if the pattern of survival is to any extent representative of what was in the original poem, the widely favored interpretation that I have sketched faces the anomaly that Empedocles apparently spent far more time accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history (and which can have left no descendants in the world we ourselves inhabit, since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it.

Although it is by no means obvious why Empedocles should have assumed the reverse cosmic process, in the supposed counterworld, to have thrown up the very same life forms that we find in our own world, it is widely held that he did, for whatever reasons, commit himself to this view. But the evidence is, on inspection, vanishingly weak.

It consists mainly in Aristotle's assertion (GC II6, 334a5-7; A42) that Empedocles "also says that the world is in the same state now, under Strife, as previously under Love." I am not the first to point out that "under Love" and "under Strife" need not necessarily mean under increasing Love or increasing Strife, which would in fact be irrelevant to Aristotle's point in the context.

Aristotle is trying to uncover contradictions between Empedocles’ various assertions about the respective motive powers of Love and Strife, and his question here is how, if Love and Strife differ from each other in their motive powers, Empedocles can hold that the world has the same basic arrangement and motions of the four simple bodies in an age dominated by Strife as it previously had in one dominated by Love—i.e., in ages in which, regardless of the actual direction of change, it is Love and Strife, respectively, that govern cosmic processes.

(It may be that his wording does also carry implications about the current direction of change, but his main point in no way depends on any such implication.) [introduction p. 331-333]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q7rH00eYu70k9Td

Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction, 2005
By: Janko, Richard, Pierrēs, Apostolos L. (Ed.)

Title	Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers
Pages	93-137
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Janko, Richard
Editor(s)	Pierrēs, Apostolos L.
Translator(s)

The first editors of the fragments, Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, have presented us with an edition of extraordinarily high quality. However, the papyrus has raised more puzzles than it has solved and thus far has been considered something of a disappointment, because much of it overlaps with the longest extant fragment of Physics Book I, while the rest has seemed very peculiar indeed.

In the last part of this paper, I shall offer a new solution to these problems, one which reveals the full significance of the papyrus, renders the philosophical system of Empedocles slightly (but only slightly) less bizarre than it has seemed, and makes the argument of his poetry much more coherent than the papyrus made it appear. In the process, we shall, I believe, be able to reconstruct a passage from his Physics 131 verses long and form a clear impression of how his great philosophical poetry would have sounded. But before I do so, I must remind you of the situation before the discovery of the papyrus and explore the question of whether Empedocles composed one poem or two, and on what topics. [introduction p. 93-94]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mT5sBgIVt1JZCw2

Empedokleův sfairos v pohledech antických interpretů, 2008
By: Hladký, Vojtech

Title	Empedokleův sfairos v pohledech antických interpretů
Type	Article
Language	Czech
Date	2008
Journal	Listy filologické / Folia philologica
Volume	131
Issue	3/4
Pages	379-439
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hladký, Vojtech
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Tento text si klade za cíl prozkoumat způsob, jakým recipují a reinterpretují Empedokleovu koncepci či spíše představu Sfairu pozdější antičtí autoři. Navazuje přitom na naši předchozí práci, ve které jsme se pokusili – především na základě textů Empedoklea samého – tento moment Empedokleova rozvrhu světa rekonstruovat.² V něm, jak známo, čtyři základní a věčné prvky-živly (oheň, vzduch, vodu, zemi) přetvářejí, navzájem slučují a rozlučují dvě formující síly – Láska a Svár. Působením Lásky tak z původně jednoduchých prvků vznikají vyšší a složitější organismy a vůbec všechny věci, naproti tomu působením Sváru dochází k jejich rozkladu a návratu prvků do jejich původní čisté podoby.

Podle závěru našeho předchozího článku je Sfairos, vzniklý v okamžiku největšího vzepětí Lásky, ve skutečnosti jakýsi obrovský organismus, zahrnující do sebe všechny předtím vzniklé věci. Ty se dohromady spojí buď tak, že doslova fyzicky srostou, či přinejmenším dohromady vytvoří harmonický svět, v němž Láska zaručuje mírumilovné soužití a soubytí všeho, co předtím ze základních prvků vytvořila. Navíc je snad možné ztotožnit Sfairos se „svatou a nadlidskou myslí (φρην ιερή και άθέσφατος)“, o níž tento autor mluví ve svém zlomku B 134.

Jsme si přitom vědomi, že tato interpretace Empedokleova Sfairu je dosti neobvyklá. Vzhledem k tomu, že se nám báseň velkého Akragantťana nezachovala v úplnosti a její přesné filozofické sdělení bylo na mnoha místech ne zcela jasné patrně již pro antického čtenáře, musíme se bohužel o mnoha aspektech nauky, kterou hlásá, pouze dohadovat. V předchozí práci jsme se pokusili rekonstruovat Sfairos na základě rozboru zachovaného Empedokleova textu doplněného o starověká svědectví.

Snažíme-li se nyní provést rozbor výkladů Sfairu, které podávají Empedokleovi filozofičtí následovníci, činíme tak rovněž proto, abychom naši poněkud nezvyklou interpretaci dále nepřímo podpořili a zároveň poukázali na vliv, jaký Empedoklés – zejména pak v případě Platónových dialogů Tímaia, Politika a Symposia – mohl mít. Projdeme-li v detailu ohlasy Empedoklea u pozdějších autorů, které jsou možná někdy poněkud překvapivé, můžeme si pak na konci našeho zkoumání znovu položit otázku, zda by nemohly vrhnout nové světlo na jeho bohužel jen velmi torzovitě zachované dílo. [introduction p. 379-381] Übersetzung: Dieser Text zielt darauf ab, die Art und Weise zu untersuchen, wie spätere antike Autoren Empedokles’ Konzept oder eher die Vorstellung des Sphairos aufnehmen und reinterpretieren. Dabei knüpft er an unsere vorherige Arbeit an, in der wir versucht haben – vor allem auf der Grundlage von Empedokles’ eigenen Texten – diesen Aspekt von Empedokles’ Weltentwurf zu rekonstruieren.² Darin, wie bekannt, formen, verbinden und trennen sich die vier grundlegenden und ewigen Elemente (Feuer, Luft, Wasser, Erde) durch das Wirken von zwei gestaltenden Kräften – Liebe und Streit. Durch die Wirkung der Liebe entstehen aus den ursprünglich einfachen Elementen höhere und komplexere Organismen und überhaupt alle Dinge, während durch die Wirkung des Streits deren Zerfall und die Rückkehr der Elemente in ihre ursprüngliche reine Form erfolgt.

Laut dem Schluss unserer vorherigen Arbeit ist der Sphairos, der im Moment des höchsten Wirkens der Liebe entsteht, tatsächlich eine Art riesiger Organismus, der alle zuvor entstandenen Dinge in sich vereint. Diese verbinden sich entweder dadurch, dass sie buchstäblich physisch miteinander verschmelzen, oder zumindest gemeinsam eine harmonische Welt schaffen, in der die Liebe ein friedliches Zusammenleben und Mitsein all dessen garantiert, was zuvor aus den grundlegenden Elementen erschaffen wurde. Darüber hinaus ist es vielleicht möglich, den Sphairos mit dem „heiligen und übermenschlichen Geist (φρην ιερή και άθέσφατος)“ zu identifizieren, von dem dieser Autor in seinem Fragment B 134 spricht.

Wir sind uns dabei bewusst, dass diese Interpretation des Sphairos von Empedokles recht ungewöhnlich ist. Da das Gedicht des großen Akragantinischen Dichters nicht vollständig erhalten ist und seine genaue philosophische Aussage wohl schon für die antiken Leser an vielen Stellen nicht völlig klar war, müssen wir uns leider in vielen Aspekten der Lehre, die er verkündet, nur auf Vermutungen stützen. In der vorherigen Arbeit haben wir versucht, den Sphairos auf der Grundlage der Analyse des erhaltenen Textes von Empedokles, ergänzt durch antike Zeugnisse, zu rekonstruieren.

Wenn wir nun versuchen, die Auslegungen des Sphairos zu analysieren, die von den philosophischen Nachfolgern des Empedokles gegeben wurden, tun wir dies auch, um unsere etwas ungewöhnliche Interpretation indirekt weiter zu stützen und zugleich auf den Einfluss hinzuweisen, den Empedokles – insbesondere im Fall der platonischen Dialoge Timaios, Politikos und Symposion – möglicherweise hatte. Wenn wir die Rezeptionen von Empedokles bei späteren Autoren im Detail durchgehen, die manchmal vielleicht etwas überraschend sind, können wir uns am Ende unserer Untersuchung erneut die Frage stellen, ob diese nicht ein neues Licht auf sein leider nur sehr fragmentarisch erhaltenes Werk werfen könnten.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DoW1OJgnzqLFDXs

Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece, 2002
By: Foley, John Miles (Ed.), Worthington, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston – Köln
Publisher	Brill
Series	Mnemosyne
Volume	Supplementum 230
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian
Translator(s)

This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.

Online Resources

Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie, 2007
By: Rashed, Marwan

Title	Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2007
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This book is the first study of the ontological system of Alexander of Aphrodisias (floruit c. 200 AD), famous for his commentaries on the works of Aristotle. By drawing not only on the entire known corpus of the commentator's works, but also on numerous new Greek and Arabic sources, Marwan Rashed aimsat defining Alexander’s place in the history of metaphysics. Alexander’s attempt to substantiate the objectivity of the Aristotelian form draws down the curtain on the phase of the Hellenistic peripatos, at the same time marking the beginning of medieval Aristotelianism.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UWvfc21ygCYe7ts

Eudemus of Rhodes, 2002
By: Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Bodnár, István M. (Ed.)

Title	Eudemus of Rhodes
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	New Jersey
Publisher	Transaction Publisher
Series	Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume	11
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M.
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY

Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time, 2002
By: Sharples, Robert W., Bodnár, István M. (Ed.), Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.)

Title	Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Eudemus of Rhodes
Pages	107-126
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)	Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W.
Translator(s)

The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.

What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO

Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli, 2002
By: Bodnár, István M., Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Bodnár, István M. (Ed.)

Title	Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Eudemus of Rhodes
Pages	171-189
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bodnár, István M.
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M.
Translator(s)

After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus’ doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle’s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle’s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life.

Here, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus’ retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus’ Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function.

The only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration—which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time—the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover.

Accordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, refers to Eudemus’ Physics far more often than to Theophrastus’ writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY

Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories", 2008
By: Tarrant, Harold

Title	Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories"
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Laval théologique et philosophique
Volume	64
Issue	3
Pages	583-595
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle’s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label “anti-Aristotelian” or “polemical”, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wSO0JNPufdqhWkk

Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus, 2003
By: Gregory, Andrew, Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.), Sheppard, Anne D. (Ed.)

Title	Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2003
Published in	Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus
Pages	5-28
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gregory, Andrew
Editor(s)	Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D.
Translator(s)

Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy,  making the model  more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V

Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary, 2023
By: Griffin, Michael J., Muzala, Melina (Ed.)

Title	Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2023
Published in	Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception
Pages	371-396
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)	Muzala, Melina
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nhzKYr8q8E565qL

Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus, 2004
By: Betegh, Gábor, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	37-50
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Betegh, Gábor
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema
and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll,
which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been
dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence.
Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed
sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it
appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the
commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct,
the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the
earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual
analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not
entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if
so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this
paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets
of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to
asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it,
conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a
commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly,
I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his
exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude
towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the
specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is
also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called
‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc

Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc, 2020
By: Papy, J. (Ed.), Gielen, E. (Ed.)

Title	Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Papy, J. , Gielen, E.
Translator(s)

Confronted with the shifting idea of the authority of a text and its transmission and reception in a variety of genres, settings and contexts, this collective volume envisages to enlarge and deepen our understanding of these notions by tangling literary forgery and emulation. Authority and authoritative literary productions provoke all kinds of interest and emulation. Hermeneutical techniques, detailed exegesis and historical critique are invoked to put authority, and indeed also possible falsifications, to the test. Scholars from various disciplines working on texts, either authoritative or forged, and stemming from different periods of time, reflect on these topics on a methodological basis and from a hermeneutical entrance. In doing so, a threefold axis for questioning the phenomenon is proposed, namely the motif of falsification, the mechanism or technique applied, and the direct or indirect effect of this fraud. [author's abstract]

Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel, 2014
By: Hoine, Pieter d' (Ed.), Van Riel, Gerd (Ed.)

Title	Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1
Volume	49
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd
Translator(s)

This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.
The main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ga4rzoji8r8swzw

Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator, 2021
By: Tarrant, Harold

Title	Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2021
Journal	History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume	24
Issue	1
Pages	210-241
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,
and both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school’s
attitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,
changed markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist
lectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their
construction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of
demonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the
text lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority
continues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal
validity. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/F0bFT161R2MXdut

Forms and Concepts. Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition, 2012
By: Helmig, Christoph

Title	Forms and Concepts. Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	5
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Forms and Concepts is the first comprehensive study of the central role of concepts and concept acquisition in the Platonic tradition. It sets up a stimulating dialogue between Plato’s innatist approach and Aristotle’s much more empirical response. The primary aim is to analyze and assess the strategies with which Platonists responded to Aristotle’s (and Alexander of Aphrodisias’) rival theory. The monograph culminates in a careful reconstruction of the elaborate attempt undertaken by the Neoplatonist Proclus (6th century AD) to devise a systematic Platonic theory of concept acquisition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7AJjtmjoFAqvB7D

Forms, Souls, and Embryos: Neoplatonists on Human Reproduction, 2016
By: Wilberding, James

Title	Forms, Souls, and Embryos: Neoplatonists on Human Reproduction
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2016
Publication Place	London – New York
Publisher	Routledge
Series	Issues in ancient philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wilberding, James
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Forms, Souls, and Embryos allows readers coming from different backgrounds to appreciate the depth and originality with which the Neoplatonists engaged with and responded to a number of philosophical questions central to human reproduction, including: What is the causal explanation of the embryo’s formation? How and to what extent are Platonic Forms involved? In what sense is a fetus ‘alive,’ and when does it become a human being? Where does the embryo’s soul come from, and how is it connected to its body? This is the first full-length study in English of this fascinating subject, and is a must-read for anyone interested in Neoplatonism or the history of medicine and embryology.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pFINi0kWts6jqtF

Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic, 2007
By: Deitz, Luc

Title	Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2007
Journal	Vivarum
Volume	45
Issue	1
Pages	113-124
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Deitz, Luc
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Francesco Patrizi da Chersos Discussiones peripateticae (1581) are one of the most com- prehensive analyses of the whole of Aristotelian philosophy to be published before Werner Jaeger s Aristoteles . The main thrust of the argument in the Discussiones is that whatever Aristotle had said that was true was not new, and that whatever he had said that was new was not true. The article shows how Patrizi proves this with respect to the Organon , and deals with the implications for the history of ancient philosophy in general implied by his stance. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jBaQdPWRsyt3XGo

From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary, 2007
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2007
Journal	Poetics Today
Volume	28
Issue	2
Pages	247–281
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Commentary  was  an  important  vehicle  for  philosophical  debate  in late  antiquity.  Its  antecedents  lie in  the rise  of rational  argumentation,  polemical rivalry, literacy,  and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest allegorizing readings  of Homer to  the  full-blown “running commentary” in the  Platonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather,  springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration,  and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9evl1bXvfOTYX0r

Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden, 2002
By: Hartmann, Udo, Schuol, Monika (Ed.), Hartmann, Udo (Ed.), Luther, Andreas (Ed.)

Title	Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2002
Published in	Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum
Pages	123-160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hartmann, Udo
Editor(s)	Schuol, Monika , Hartmann, Udo , Luther, Andreas
Translator(s)

Der  Exkurs  über  Chosroes,  Uranius  und  die  Philosophengesandtschaft  der 
athenischen  Neuplatoniker  im  Jahr  532  gestattet  einen  Einblick  in  die 
kulturellen  Kontakte  zwischen  Rom  und  Persien  im  6.  Jahrhundert.  Er  zeigt, 
daß es  im Römischen  Reich eine  weitverbreitete Kenntnis über die Renaissance 
der  Sasaniden  unter  Chosroes  gab,  auch  wenn  das  Bild  Persiens  zum  Teil 
idealisiert  wurde.  Die  philosophische  Bildung  des  Chosroes  rühmten  sowohl 
Perser  als  auch  Römer.  Der  Exkurs  demonstriert  das  breite  Interesse  an  der 
anderen  Kultur,  das  sich  besonders  bei  den  Heiden  fand.  Schließlich  ver
deutlicht  er,  daß  sich  Persien  im  6.  Jahrhundert  zunehmend  zum  Fluchtpunkt 
für Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem Römischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5

Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot, 2009
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc (Ed.), Poirier, Paul-Hubert (Ed.)

Title	Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2009
Publication Place	Paris - Québec
Publisher	Vrin - Les Presses de l'Université Laval
Series	Collection Zêtêsis: Série «Textes et essais»
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert
Translator(s)

Un livre d’historiens et de philosophes spécilalistes de l’antiquité en hommage à Pierre Hadot, lui-même philosophe français et historien de l'antiquité très réputé et l'auteur d'une œuvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesurée, développée notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme manière de vivre. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx

Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation, 2005
By: D'Ancona Costa, Cristina, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Taylor, Richard C. (Ed.)

Title	Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy
Pages	10-32
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Taylor, Richard C.
Translator(s)

In this article, the author discusses the impact of Plotinus, a philosopher of the late ancient period, on the development of philosophical thought, including the creation of falsafa and its influence on philosophy in the Middle Ages. D'Ancona Costa explores Plotinus' Platonism and his incorporation of the doctrines of other philosophers, especially Aristotle, into his teachings. She examines Plotinus' key doctrines, including his understanding of soul, intelligible reality, and the Forms, and how they influenced the development of falsafa. The article also discusses the Neoplatonic model of philosophy as a systematic discipline, covering topics from logic to theology, and how it impacted the study of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the article argues that an understanding of the roots of falsafa in the philosophical thought of Late Antiquity is essential for a proper understanding of the development of philosophy. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0rcOOPNBmsQmGsu

Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum, 2002
By: Schuol, Monika (Ed.), Hartmann, Udo (Ed.), Luther, Andreas (Ed.)

Title	Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2002
Publication Place	Stuttgart
Publisher	Franz Steiner Verlag
Series	Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben
Volume	3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Schuol, Monika , Hartmann, Udo , Luther, Andreas
Translator(s)

Aus dem Inhalt: J. Wiesehöfer: Plön, Innsbruck, Berlin … Der „Orientkreis“ oder das Wandern zwischen zwei Welten ― A. Demandt: Alexander im Islam ― E. Baltrusch: Zwischen Autonomie und Repression: Perspektiven und Grenzen einer Zusammenarbeit zwischen jüdischen Gemeinden und hellenistischem Staat ― A. Gebhardt: Numismatische Beiträge zur spätdomitianischen Ostpolitik – Vorbereitungen eines Partherkrieges? ― B. Gufler: Orientalische Wurzeln griechischer Gorgo-Darstellungen ― P. Haider: Glaubensvorstellungen in Heliopolis / Baalbek in neuer Sicht ― U. Hartmann: Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden ― U. Hartmann / A. Luther: Münzen des hatrenischen Herrn wrwd (Worod) ― I. Huber: Der Perser-Nomos des Timotheos – Zwischen Unterhaltungsliteratur und politischer Propaganda ― P. Huyse: Sprachkontakte und Entlehnungen zwischen dem Griechisch/Lateinischen und dem Mitteliranischen ― H. Klinkott: Die Funktion des Apadana am Beispiel der Gründungsurkunde von Susa ― A. Luther: Zwietracht am Fluß Tanais: Nachrichten über das Bosporanische Reich bei Horaz? ― U. Scharrer: Nomaden und Seßhafte in Tadmor im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ― M. Schuol: Zur Überlieferung homerischer Epen vor dem Hintergrund altanatolischer Traditionen ― S. Stark: Nomaden und Seßhafte in Mittel- und Zentralasien: Nomadische Adaptionsstrategien am Fallbeispiel der Alttürken. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rscXaDagl5S5H9Q

Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC, 2008
By: Sharples, Robert W.

Title	Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Acta Antiqua
Volume	48
Issue	1-2
Pages	273-287
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

A re-examination of the question of why, during the revival of interest in Aristotle’s esoteric works in the first century BC, the Categories played such a prominent role. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest precisely because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle’s other works—with the possible exception of the Metaphysics—it revealed aspects of Aristotle’s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9elANNxfsrgxsis

Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers', 2005
By: Lane Fox, Robin, Smith, Andrew (Ed.)

Title	Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown
Pages	231-244
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lane Fox, Robin
Editor(s)	Smith, Andrew
Translator(s)

Since 1986, in a series of wide-ranging studies, M. Tardieu has argued that the ‘Seven philosophers who went East when the Athens Academy closed settled down at Harran (Carrhae) in northern Syria. The town was a famous bastion of pagan cult (we can usefully contrast its neighbour, perhaps its rival, the stridently Christian Edessa: Green 1992, 44-94; Segal 1970). Furthermore, he believes, a (neo)Platonic seat of philosophical teaching persisted in Harran into the ninth/tenth centuries ad, being sustained in the wake of the émigrés’ presence. Its participants presented themselves as
the ‘Sabians’, the enigmatic group who had been favourably mentioned in the Koran. They then led the renewed prominence of Platonist philosophy in the Abbasid era which is visible to us in the ninth-tenth centuries. This theory of a long Platonist ‘survival’ has not exactly endeared itself to experts in early Islamic philosophy (e.g. Gutas 1994, 4943; Endress 1991, 133-7; Lameer 1997), but it has been enthusiastically received by one or two writers on late antiquity: P. Chuvin (1990), I. Hadot (1996, who was first attracted by support for her studies of Simplicius, his text and Manichaeism) and P. Athanassiadi (1993, 29) who made it the final flourish of a long article on late pagan philosophy: ‘it was thanks to the stepping-stone of Harran and to Damascius’ inspired decisiveness [in settling in Harran] that Neoplatonic theology reached Baghdad by a clearly definable - if not direct — route from Athens’. I wish to restate why it did nothing of the sort. [introduction, p. 231]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EVFox3CG77HUjPw

Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion, 2009
By: Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Pender, Elizabeth E. (Ed.)

Title	Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	London - New York
Publisher	Routledge
Series	Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume	15
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E.
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/M1J1UpbWT682j4V

Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities, 2009
By: Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Pender, Elizabeth E. (Ed.), Todd, Robert B., Bowen, Alan C.

Title	Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2009
Published in	Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion
Pages	155-183
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Todd, Robert B. , Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E.
Translator(s)

The passages translated here (T1–6) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant “fragments” of modern editions (65C, 66–69, and 71 in volume XIV = 104–108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein’s and Kidd’s edition of Posidonius’ fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by //...// ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions.

To be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity’s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study.

Information on this theory of the Earth’s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412–485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490–560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it.

Even the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius’ citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo (T4–6), and one in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position.

In what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy’s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato’s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8–C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides’ theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth.

Finally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5–6) appended to discussions of Aristotle’s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo.

In an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides’ theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges—first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)—is a methodological rationale for Heraclides’ theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, “to save the phenomena.”

Yet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides’ theory of the Earth’s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides’ theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations.

So, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides’ theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways.
[conclusion p. 155-158]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2YB813ju2mFR0oM

How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility, 2017
By: Van Riel, Gerd, Roskam, Geert (Ed.), Verheyden, Joseph (Ed.)

Title	How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2017
Published in	Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World
Pages	49-59
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Van Riel, Gerd
Editor(s)	Roskam, Geert , Verheyden, Joseph
Translator(s)

This article explores the problem of how perceptibility can arise in a Platonic universe where causes are always immaterial. Dualistic accounts that posit irreducible differences between the res extensa and the res cogitans fail to explain the existence of the material world, which the Neoplatonists endorse as a monistic system where every possible part of the universe is ultimately produced by the First Principle. Proclus provides a subtle answer to this problem by arguing that perceptibility is not something matter has out of itself, but is the effect of a gift of the Demiurge. The ten gifts of the Demiurge are given in the third book of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, with perceptibility being the first gift that determines the lower part of the cosmos, i.e., the corporeal realm. This article argues that perceptibility is not the effect of quantity as such but of the presence of qualities in the bulk that moulds it into the four primordial elements, and it ultimately brings the sensible realm back to intelligible causes. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KrcI8dAakPuz3gf

I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio, 2010
By: Saudelli, Lucia

Title	I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2010
Journal	Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica
Volume	96
Issue	3
Pages	127-137
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Saudelli, Lucia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/H7VTl0R3s0lDL6j

I commentari all'Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo, 2010
By: Militello, Chiara

Title	I commentari all'Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2010
Publication Place	Roma
Publisher	Bonanno Editore
Series	Analecta Humanitatis
Volume	18
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Militello, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Oggetto di questo volume sono i commentari all.Isagoge di Porfirio che furono redatti tra il V e il VII secolo d.C. da Ammonio, Elia, Davide, pseudo-Elia (tutti rappresentanti della Scuola di Alessandria) e Boezio (che riprese nel mondo latino la tradizione delle Scuole neoplatoniche ateniese e alessandrina). All'analisi della struttura generale dei commentari si accompagna lo studio e la contestualizzazione all'interno del complesso sviluppo della tradizione esegetica (che comprende tanto fattori di continuità quanto momenti di rottura) dei passi che, vertendo sui concetti logico-metafisici di genere, specie e individuo, esemplificano le diverse soluzioni al problema dell'armonizzazione tra aristotelismo e platonismo. [author's abstract]
Translation: The subject of this volume is the commentaries on Porphyry's Isagoge, which were written between the 5th and 7th centuries AD by Ammonius, Elias, David, pseudo-Elias (all representatives of the Alexandrian School), and Boethius (who brought the tradition of the Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonic Schools into the Latin world). Alongside the analysis of the general structure of the commentaries, the study also examines and contextualizes passages within the complex development of the exegetical tradition (which includes both factors of continuity and moments of rupture). These passages, focusing on the logical-metaphysical concepts of genus, species, and individual, illustrate various solutions to the problem of harmonizing Aristotelianism and Platonism.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oU9mkubdz6V4nsQ

Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary, 2002
By: Finamore, John F., Dillon, John, Iamblichus

Title	Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia antiqua
Volume	92
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Finamore, John F. , Dillon, John , Iamblichus
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Iamblichus (245-325), successor to Plotinus and Porphyry, brought a new religiosity to Neoplatonism. His theory of the soul is at the heart of his philosophical system. For Iamblichus, the human soul is so far inferior to the divine that its salvation depends not on philosophy alone (as it did for Plotinus) but on the aid of the gods and other divinities.
This edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' major work on the soul, De Anima, is accompanied by the first English translation of the work and a commentary which explains the philosophical background and Iamblichus' doctrine of the soul. Included as well are excerpts from the Pseudo-Simplicius and Priscianus (also translated with commentary) that shed further light on Iamblichus' treatise. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/io7BO9pzLrSoTGE

Iamblichus on Soul, 2014
By: Finamore, John F., Remes, Pauliina (Ed.), Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (Ed.)

Title	Iamblichus on Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism
Pages	280-292
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Finamore, John F.
Editor(s)	Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla
Translator(s)

Central to lamblichus’ philosophy is his doctrine o f the soul. The hum an soul strad
dles two worlds (the realms o f the Intelligible and o f Nature)  and can  operate in both. 
H um an  souls descend  to  live  a  life on  earth, but their real hom e is  in  the Intelligible 
W orld o f the Forms. Through the help o f the interm ediary divinities,  hum an souls re
ascend to the Intelligible and regain their proper abode. The hum an soul is the central 
character in this dram a, and its purification through philosophy and ritual is central to 
its eventual ascent.As  in  other  areas,  lamblichus’  philosophy  o f the  soul  had  a  large  im pact  on  later 
Neoplatonists. We are lucky enough to have large sections o f his de Anima, preserved by 
John Stobaeus. His de Mysteriis and fragments from his Platonic com m entaries also shed 
light on Iamblichean psychology, but the m ost im portant fragments are preserved by the 
author o f the com m entary to A ristotle’s de Anima, who may or may not be Simplicius,2 
and by Priscianus o f Lydia. We will consider all o f these sources as we examine lamblichus’ 
unique doctrine of the soul. [p. 280]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IYcaU85hLlbEvz5

Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories, 2016
By: Dillon, John, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	313-326
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Dillon, John
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

It will be seen that it is Iamblichus’ purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus’ distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7

Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averroè e Pietro d'Alvernia, 2006
By: Musatti, Cesare Alberto

Title	Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averroè e Pietro d'Alvernia
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2006
Journal	Quaestio
Volume	6
Pages	524–549
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Musatti, Cesare Alberto
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In merito a questa attribuzione bisogna tuttavia tenere presenti le osservazioni di Gutman (pp. XIII-XVII dell’introduzione all’edizione), il quale ha editato il testo sotto il nome dello Pseudo-Avicenna.

Per quanto riguarda il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo, nel Medioevo si sono avute due traduzioni latine: una parziale (II libro e prologo del III) ad opera di Roberto Grossatesta, che Bossier data tra il 1235 e il 1253, e una completa di Guglielmo di Moerbeke, conclusa nel 1271.

La traduzione di Grossatesta ci è conservata in un solo manoscritto (Oxford, Balliol College 99), e non sembra avere avuto un’ampia diffusione, mentre della traduzione completa di Guglielmo di Moerbeke attualmente sono conosciuti con certezza sei manoscritti.

Se sembra da escludere qualsiasi ipotesi di una revisione da parte di Moerbeke della traduzione di Grossatesta del commento di Simplicio, ancora non definitivamente risolta è invece la questione se la traduzione moerbekana del De caelo di Aristotele sia o meno una revisione di quella incompleta del Grossatesta (II libro e prologo del III) che è presente in forma di lemmi nello stesso manoscritto che contiene il commento di Simplicio.

Bossier considera «plus probable» l’opinione di D. J. Allan, secondo cui la traduzione di Moerbeke è indipendente da quella del Grossatesta, mentre Lacombe e Franceschini hanno ritenuto trattarsi di una revisione.

L’esistenza di un manoscritto (Vat. lat. 2088) nel quale la traduzione del De caelo di Moerbeke risulta contaminata con quella di Grossatesta anche per alcune parti del primo libro lascia supporre che il Lincolniensis abbia tradotto anche quest’ultimo libro, e non solo il II e l’inizio del III. È stato infine ipotizzato che Grossatesta abbia tradotto anche il primo libro del commento di Simplicio.

La traduzione del vescovo di Lincoln del II libro del De caelo è ora consultabile nell’Aristoteles Latinus Database, così come il testo della seconda recensione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke al De caelo di Aristotele. Di quest’ultima traduzione esistono infatti tre recensioni differenti, di cui la seconda è la cosiddetta recensio vulgata.

Il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo è stato scritto probabilmente intorno al 540. Prima di lui almeno due altri autori avevano dedicato un commento al testo aristotelico: Alessandro di Afrodisia e Temistio.

Il commento di Alessandro di Afrodisia è andato perduto sia nel testo greco che nella traduzione araba di Abū Bishr Mattā ibn Yūnus. Molte notizie le possiamo trarre però dal commento di Simplicio, di cui il testo di Alessandro costituisce la fonte principale.

Il commento di Alessandro viene citato anche nella parafrasi sul De caelo scritta da Temistio. Come per Alessandro di Afrodisia, il testo di Temistio è anch’esso andato perduto sia nell’originale greco che nella traduzione araba di Yaḥyā ibn ʿAdī. Si è salvato soltanto nella traduzione ebraica di quest’ultima compiuta nel 1284 da Zerahyah ben Isaac ben Shealtiel Gracian, e nella successiva versione latina del testo ebraico ad opera di Mosé Alatino nel 1574.

È opportuno ricordare che, a differenza dei commenti di Alessandro di Afrodisia e di Temistio, il commento di Simplicio sul De caelo non è stato conosciuto dal mondo arabo. [introduction p. 525-526]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vE3O8oovZ2S3BG7

Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio, 2016
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano, Boriello, Maria (Ed.), Vitale, Angelo Maria (Ed.)

Title	Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Published in	Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico
Pages	171-188
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)	Boriello, Maria , Vitale, Angelo Maria
Translator(s)

È bene trarre a questo punto qualche considerazione conclusiva da quanto detto in questo studio, nel quale spero di avere sufficientemente mostrato il peso e il valore che Platone riveste in Simplicio a correzione del modo in cui il rapporto essere-uno viene discusso criticamente da Aristotele in Phys. 1,2. Il contributo teorico di Simplicio pare sostanziarsi sia nel reperimento, nel Parmenide, di quella che secondo lui è la nozione eleatica di essere-uno, sia nella precisazione che in tale dialogo si trova anche una nozione di uno superiore all’essere, l’uno che non è. Tale nozione si ritroverebbe anche nel Sofista sotto forma di critica di Platone alla posizione dei filosofi monisti.

Il Parmenide e il Sofista sarebbero, quindi, i dialoghi in cui Platone avrebbe risolto l’aporia dell’uni-molteplicità sia nell’ambito del sensibile che in quello dell’intelligibile. Questa rielaborazione di Platone, la quale richiama in maniera implicita la storia delle esegesi neoplatoniche del Parmenide, costituirebbe verosimilmente un indizio della rielaborazione neoplatonica del platonismo a cui Simplicio fornisce il suo contributo, ovvero di un platonismo che (eccezione fatta, forse, per il solo Porfirio), da Plotino in poi, reca in sé le tracce precise della svolta meontologica operata da quest’ultimo.

Se Aristotele ha risolto l’aporia dell’uno e dei molti sul piano sensibile, pensa Simplicio, facendo coesistere l’unità della sostanza (la quale garantisce l’unità dell’intero in virtù del suo sussistere per sé) e la molteplicità degli accidenti (che invece non sussistono per sé), Platone ha invece affrontato e risolto l’aporia sotto un duplice profilo, sensibile (Parmenide) e intelligibile (Sofista) a un tempo. Anche a proposito della soluzione all’aporia dell’uno e dei molti, Simplicio tende, dunque, ad analizzare la posizione di Aristotele alla luce di quella di Platone e in subordine a questa, o perlomeno intendendo questa come completiva di quella, analogamente a quanto si è visto in riferimento alla querelle sugli Eleati.

Anche a proposito di quest’ultima Simplicio si mostra lettore attento, quando è possibile aderente ad Aristotele, che era considerato da tutti i neoplatonici filosofo di straordinario ingegno, ma senza mai dimenticare che la somma auctoritas spetta senza dubbio a Platone, in linea con un atteggiamento ermeneutico, risalente almeno a Porfirio, che è conciliarista ma in un rapporto decisamente asimmetrico, dal momento che è solo Platone, per Simplicio come per tutti i platonici d’ogni tempo, l’unico vero princeps philosophorum. [conclusion 187–188]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o07B1GK3GIK7dVY

Il male come "privazione". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia, 2017
By: Cardullo, R. Loredana

Title	Il male come "privazione". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Journal	PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA
Volume	1
Issue	8
Pages	391-408
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Cardullo, R. Loredana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ay8T0flgyMGienR

In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties, 2012
By: Opsomer, Jan, Wilberding, James (Ed.), Horn, Christoph (Ed.)

Title	In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Pages	147-173
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)	Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph
Translator(s)

The introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings.

Prior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichnê, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such.

In order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (dieschêmatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle—that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)—and the right isosceles triangle—a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called ‘surfaces’ (epiphaneia) by the commentators.

For the sake of convenience, I shall call ‘surfaces’ the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call ‘triangles’. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.)

Six triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube).

These polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs):

The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire.
The octahedron that of air.
The icosahedron that of water.
The hexahedron that of earth.

This model of Plato’s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels—one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are ‘even higher principles’ that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR

Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik, 2012
By: Drews, Friedemann

Title	Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2012
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	155
Issue	3/4
Pages	389-412
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Drews, Friedemann
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplikios nimmt Parmenides sowohl vor dem potentiellen Vorwurf, er würde nicht hinreichend zwischen Intelligiblem und Sinnlichem unterscheiden, in Schutz als auch integriert er Aristoteles' Kritik im Sinne einer potentiellen Missverständnissen vor beugenden Vorsichtsmaßnahme in seine neuplatonische Parmeni des-Interpretation und weist ihr so einen berechtigten Platz zu. Simplikios' Gründe dafür erscheinen vor dem Hintergrund seines neuplatonischen Denkens plausibel. Ob seine Parmenides-Interpretation als solche dem Eleaten gerecht wird, ist eine andere Frage; zumindest würde Simplikios gegenüber einer Deutung des parmenideischen Seins-Begriffs in dem Sinne, dass „jeder Gegenstand, den wir untersuchen, existieren muß", wohl einwenden wollen, dass dies einer Reduktion von Parmenides' το έόν auf ein abstraktes Erkenntniskriterium gleichkäme, dessen eigene, nur für das νοεΐν erkennbare Seinsfülle dann aus dem Blick geraten wäre. Auch erschiene es in dieser Perspektive fraglich, warum zum Erschließen eines allgemeinen Existenz-Postulats ein Weg „fernab der Menschen" eingeschlagen werden musste oder gar eine göttliche Offenbarung des „unerschütterlichen Herzens der wohlüberzeugenden Wahrheit", von der Parmenides schreibt, nötig war. [conclusion, p. 410-411]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ICo5GC7IUBJgLkS

Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 2022
By: Helmig, Christoph, Lammer, Andreas (Ed.), Jas, Mareike (Ed.)

Title	Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2022
Published in	Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World
Pages	175-206
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)	Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike
Translator(s)

Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.

Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.

In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.

Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.

The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides.
[conclusion p. 200-202]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3

Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, 2011
By: Lössl, Josef (Ed.), Watt, John W. (Ed.)

Title	Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	Surrey – Burlington
Publisher	Ashgate
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Lössl, Josef , Watt, John W.
Translator(s)

This book brings together sixteen studies by internationally renowned scholars on the origins and early development of the Latin and Syriac biblical and philosophical commentary traditions. It casts light on the work of the founder of philosophical biblical commentary, Origen of Alexandria, and traces the developments of fourth- and fifth-century Latin commentary techniques in writers such as Marius Victorinus, Jerome and Boethius. The focus then moves east, to the beginnings of Syriac philosophical commentary and its relationship to theology in the works of Sergius of Reshaina, Probus and Paul the Persian, and the influence of this continuing tradition in the East up to the Arabic writings of al-Farabi. There are also chapters on the practice of teaching Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy in fifth-century Alexandria, on contemporaneous developments among Byzantine thinkers, and on the connections in Latin and Syriac traditions between translation (from Greek) and commentary. With its enormous breadth and the groundbreaking originality of its contributions, this volume is an indispensable resource not only for specialists, but also for all students and scholars interested in late-antique intellectual history, especially the practice of teaching and studying philosophy, the philosophical exegesis of the Bible, and the role of commentary in the post-Hellenistic world as far as the classical renaissance in Islam.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kR9UCCsaG87xlqQ

Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus, 2010
By: Sorabji, Richard

Title	Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2010
Published in	Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Pages	1-40
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Since 1987, when the first edition of this book appeared, there have been new findings both about Philoponus' thought and about his milieu. In this Introduction to the second edition, I will start with the milieu. There has been a major archaeological discovery, nothing less than the lecture rooms of the Alexandrian school. It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identified the lecture rooms of the 6th-century Alexandrian school, surprisingly well preserved. Although the first few rooms had been excavated 25 years earlier, the identification had become possible only now. By 2008, 20 rooms had been excavated. 20 is the number of rooms reported by a 12th-century source writing in Arabic, Abd el-Latif, but there may be more. [introduction p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UotikAt6Giet2tb

John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus, 2016
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	393-412
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Philoponus’ denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work.

To conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius’ commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus’ edition of Ammonius’ lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius’ lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI

Kathēgemōn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism, 2021
By: Christian Tornau

Title	Kathēgemōn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	201-226
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Christian Tornau
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

So far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kathēgemōn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.⁸⁴ The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter’s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle’s deviation from his kathēgemōn Plato.⁸⁵ The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an ‘emulator’ of Plato (ζηλώσας, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),⁸⁶ but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays ‘how much he lags behind the guidance (ὑφήγησις) of his kathēgemōn.’⁸⁷ Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kathēgemōn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato’s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was ‘endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kathēgemōn [sc. Plato]’ and was himself able to offer theological guidance (ὑφήγησις) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.⁸⁸ Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism.

Simplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,⁸⁹ takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus’ verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle ‘is not in disharmony with his kathēgemōn,’⁹⁰ implying—and sometimes stating—that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (κίνησις) and change (μεταβολή) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).⁹¹ Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle’s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato’s thought:

It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (ἐννοίας) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25–26 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)⁹²

When he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of ‘willing’ or ‘striving’ in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue:

In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20–22 Diels.)⁹³
On this, too, Aristotle wants (βούλεται) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)⁹⁴

Simplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus’ own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius’ use of kathēgemōn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus’, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle’s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism.

Concerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kathēgemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius’ lectures or written treatises.⁹⁵ However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria:

My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. ‘It is,’ he said, ‘no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .’ I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23–60.1 Diels.)⁹⁶

Simplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.⁹⁷ We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument.

Ultimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus’ era. [conclusion p. 222-226]

Online Resources

Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica, 2020
By: Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Taormina, Daniela Patrizia (Ed.), Walter, Denis (Ed.)

Title	Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia
Series	Academia philosophical studies
Volume	71
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Taormina, Daniela Patrizia , Walter, Denis
Translator(s)

In diesem Sammelband wird die Idee des Körpers und der Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike untersucht. Dazu werden Fragen der Ontologie, der Mathematik, der Physik, der Astronomie, der Biologie, der Anthropologie, der Politik, der Theologie und der Ästhetik behandelt. Die Bedeutung des Themas ergibt sich sowohl aus seiner historischen Relevanz (für die Bildende Kunst, die Literatur, die Fachwissenschaften, die Religion und die allgemeine Kulturgeschichte) als auch aufgrund seiner philosophischen Wichtigkeit. Vom philosophischen Standpunkt betrachtet enthält die spätantike Reflexion über Körperlichkeit eine beeindruckende Fülle an Bedeutungen, die in diesem Band diskutiert werden. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YLmhzofUpyMnWop

L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques réflexions, 2013
By: Louguet, Claire, Rousseau, Phillipe (Ed.)

Title	L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques réflexions
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2013
Published in	Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie
Pages	51-84
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Louguet, Claire
Editor(s)	Rousseau, Phillipe
Translator(s)

Le système d’Anaxagore est un labyrinthe où l’on se perd et dont on peine à trouver l’issue, une énigme dont on ne peut pourtant s’empêcher de chercher la solution. Mais cette solution, objet de la quête de tout interprète franchissant le seuil du labyrinthe, a-t-elle jamais existé ? Était-elle exposée par Anaxagore dans les textes qui ont disparu sans doute à jamais ? Anaxagore voyait-il lui-même les contradictions internes qu’ont décelées ses critiques ? Si oui, les assumait-il lui-même ?

Lorsqu’on interprète des textes (et à plus forte raison lorsqu’ils sont fragmentaires), on recherche une cohérence qui rende intelligible l’ensemble. En ce qui concerne Anaxagore, on le fait le plus souvent en introduisant des éléments que les textes ne mentionnent pas, trouvant sans doute dans l’aspect fragmentaire du corpus une raison qui légitime une telle démarche. Il y a autant d’interprétations et d’hypothèses que d’interprètes, et, dans le cas d’Anaxagore, cette multitude de voix discordantes rend plus complexe encore la structure du labyrinthe, si bien qu’on désespère d’en trouver un jour l’issue.

Dans ce bruissement de voix multiples qui ne cesse de s’amplifier, dans cette quête effrénée de la solution, la lecture des travaux de Lanza nous invite à faire une pause, à nous éloigner du vacarme et à nous taire, pour écouter et réfléchir. Car ce qui distingue la démarche de Lanza, c’est justement qu’elle engage le lecteur à un travail réflexif, à un retour sur son propre travail d’interprète.

Si donc les thèses de Lanza peuvent trouver leur place dans une doxographie des interprétations, l’important en réalité n’est pas là (ou pas seulement), mais dans le fait qu’il se situe en dehors, car son geste dépasse le cadre général des interprétations : il se situe hors champ, pour ainsi dire. Certains estimeront ou ont estimé sans doute qu’il reste en deçà ; je dirai pour ma part qu’il va au-delà et qu’il nous emmène au-delà du cadre balisé. Tout dépend de ce que l’on cherche : le Socrate du Théétète ne parvient pas au but officiel ou explicite du dialogue, mais il fait avancer considérablement ses interlocuteurs (et les lecteurs) dans la démarche de la recherche, et ce faisant, il atteint le but véritable.

Ce que Lanza donne au lecteur est moins un contenu que les moyens de se faire sa propre interprétation, les moyens de la construire de la façon la moins naïve et la plus consciente possible. Quels que soient les résultats qu’il obtient en termes de compréhension du système d’Anaxagore, quelles que soient les hypothèses qu’il propose, ce genre de considération suffit à rendre son travail original et utile aujourd’hui encore.

Si son travail est daté, c’est « par accident » : parce qu’il se situe dans les années 1960, à une époque où les interprétations majeures (anglo-saxonnes pour la plupart) étaient orientées vers une conception particulariste (ou corpusculariste) des éléments d’Anaxagore. Bien que l’objectif de Lanza ne soit pas polémique, il est évident qu’il a construit sa propre interprétation en opposition à ce genre de reconstructions – cela apparaît comme un leitmotiv dans ses commentaires.

Dans ce qui suit, je ne prendrai pas position sur ces questions passionnantes mais assez datées, ni sur la question de savoir si Lanza a raison d’attribuer à ces interprètes des confusions entre Anaxagore et l’atomisme. En revanche, j’insisterai sur les points forts de son travail, qui ont ceci de remarquable qu’ils ne sont pas atteints, eux, par la contingence ni soumis aux vicissitudes du temps. Comme nous le verrons, cette solidité tient au fait que Lanza évolue dans la sphère du vraisemblable et qu’il se montre sensible au fait que son objet possède une unité.

Je présenterai d’abord les éléments remarquables de l’interprétation de Lanza, après quoi j’exposerai un point épineux de la réception ancienne et moderne (la question des homéomères), qui a particulièrement intéressé Lanza et au sujet duquel il a une thèse forte qu’il convient d’examiner. [introduction p. 51-52]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8fCGIzpqB6IdoMr

L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio, 2016
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano

Title	L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Journal	Athenaeum
Volume	104
Issue	1
Pages	186-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In  this  paper  I  will  explain  some  passages  of Simplicius, in   Phys.  1,  in  which  the Commentator discusses  the Aristotelian  expression pephyke de ek tôn gvorimoteron (Phys.  1.1, 184a. 16).  Here Simplicius  distinguishes  ta gnorimotera  from  to autopiston,  such  as the  definitions  and  the  immediate  premises,  and  from  the  dianoetic  knowledge,  which  is  syllogistic and demonstrative. Notwithstanding the topic o f these passages is epistemological, here the Commentator, through a syllogism in which there is an evident reminiscence o f Plato’s Timaeus, cites the  beauty o f the universe as an  initial  step  to  raise to  the  goodness o f die Demiurge. After an articulated investigation  (in which are involved, as well, Aristotle’s Rhetoric and above all P osteriorA nalytics), Simplicius concludes that to kalon has  the same statute of gnorimoteron hemîn (Arise. Phys.  1.1.184a.l6). The purpose o f the Commentator seems that to conciliate Plato and Aristotle, and the result is an original and creative,  but at the same rime exact and careful, way  to do the exegesis  of Aristotle’s Physics. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5jR4LzCbg0vHYAp

L'interprétation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	L'interprétation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	143-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d’Épictète, qui compare la vie humaine à un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d’une interprétation allégorique de la parabole qui s’efforce de nous en faire découvrir le sens caché. En voici la traduction :

    "Or, il me semble qu’il a introduit un exemple imaginé d’une manière tout à fait appropriée. Car la mer, parce qu’elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agitées, qu’elle change d’une manière si variée, qu’elle étouffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l’analogie qu’elle présente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu’elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les âmes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d’Heimarmenê ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait être le dieu, lui qui, par ses prévoyantes pensées, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d’une manière adaptée au mérite (kat’ axian) de chacun, l’univers et la descente des âmes dans le devenir.

    L’entrée du navire au port, c’est la mise en place des âmes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c’est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendrées en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d’eau, c’est le soin des choses nécessaires à la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu’y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus nécessaire que l’eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l’on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-même l’exégèse d’une manière appropriée : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propriété, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont données par le Tout ; il faut les recevoir sans doute, mais non pas comme objets principaux de notre choix, ni comme biens qui nous soient propres.

    Le principal, en effet, c’est d’être tendu et tourné perpétuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut même pas s’intéresser à ces choses, comme si elles étaient nécessaires de la même manière que la provision d’eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose véritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile à la vie." [introduction p. 143-144]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UWgctr8ErscwqR3

L'écriture et les Présocratiques: Analyse de l'interprétation de Eric Havelock, 2005
By: Palù, Chiara

Title	L'écriture et les Présocratiques: Analyse de l'interprétation de Eric Havelock
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2005
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	23
Issue	2
Pages	75-92
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Palù, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L'interprétation de Havelock situe les penseurs présocratiques, ou plutôt pré-platoniciens, dans un milieu qu'il définit comme étant antérieur à la diffusion de l'écriture (pre-literacy). Cette interprétation provient de sa thèse générale, qui concerne la question du passage entre l'oralité et l'écriture en Grèce ancienne.

Si l'introduction de l'alphabet phénicien, à l'époque archaïque, entraîne l'abandon des systèmes de communication orale, fondés sur l'écoute et la mémorisation, au profit de nouveaux systèmes fondés sur la circulation et la lecture individuelle de textes écrits, ce passage ne s'effectue cependant pas d'un seul coup. En dépit de l'introduction de l'écriture, continuent de subsister, pendant presque toute l'époque archaïque, des mécanismes de performance orale, tandis que l'écriture, à son début, n'avait qu'une seule fonction, celle de fixer la parole.

Havelock, pour soutenir sa thèse, s'appuie initialement sur le Phèdre de Platon. La réflexion de Platon, qui, du reste, n'est pas isolée, est perçue comme une sorte de prise de conscience de problématiques préexistantes, au terme d'un processus de mutation culturelle dans lequel l'écriture joue un rôle déterminant. La critique de l'écriture, en effet, peut être définie comme une dernière défense de la parole orale à une époque où l'écrit prédomine désormais.

C'est en un second temps que Havelock s'est tourné vers les textes des présocratiques eux-mêmes. Il est vrai que dans la tradition pré-platonicienne, il n'existe pas de texte comme le Phèdre, qui thématise la question de l'écriture, mais, d'après Havelock, on peut repérer, dans les textes des présocratiques, les traces des structures orales qui avaient caractérisé la phase précédant la réintroduction de l'écriture.

Havelock souligne surtout l'adoption de la métrique et du rythme dans les poèmes d'Empédocle, Xénophane et Parménide, et le recours à une prose poétique dans le discours d'Héraclite, en tant qu'éléments qui devaient faciliter la mémorisation pour un public d'auditeurs. Mais l'approche de Havelock n'est pas seulement stylistique.

La diffusion progressive, à l'époque archaïque, de la literacy aux dépens de l'oralité requiert l'adoption d'un nouveau langage, qui prend ses distances par rapport au langage mythique et détermine ainsi l'émergence de la philosophie elle-même. Selon Havelock, c'est justement cette relation que Platon n'a pas vue, et c'est de là que provient le caractère contradictoire de sa critique à l'égard de l'écriture.

La thèse de Havelock n'a pas manqué de susciter des réactions parmi les interprètes, en produisant, ces dernières années, une quantité remarquable d'études consacrées à ce sujet.

En général, les interprètes ont analysé surtout la relation supposée entre le langage des présocratiques et l'écriture, d'une part, et celle entre l'écriture et l'émergence de la philosophie, d'autre part. La réflexion sur le langage devrait, en effet, renforcer la thèse de Havelock à l'égard de la permanence de structures orales dans les textes des présocratiques, et cette permanence devrait, à son tour, renforcer le rapport reconstitué par Havelock entre écriture et émergence de la philosophie.

Mais l'analyse stylistique, à elle seule, ne permet pas de conclure à la permanence de structures orales, et ces dernières sont tout aussi peu concluantes en tant qu'arguments à l'appui du rapport supposé entre écriture et émergence de la philosophie. [introduction p. 75-77]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qlp5mJ4QSDQl1a0

La Brillance de Nestis (Empédocle, fr. 96), 2008
By: Picot, Jean-Claude

Title	La Brillance de Nestis (Empédocle, fr. 96)
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2008
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	26
Issue	1
Pages	75-100
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Picot, Jean-Claude
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

ἤ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος ἐν εὐτύκτοις χοάνοισι
τώ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων λάχε Νήστιδος αἴγλης,
τέσσαρα δ' Ἡφαίστοιο· τὰ δ' ὀστέα λευκὰ γένοντο
Ἁρμονίης κόλληισιν ἀρηρότα θεσπεσίηισιν.

Traduction :

Et la terre serviable en ses creusets bien façonnés
Reçut deux parts sur huit de la brillance de Nestis,
Et quatre d'Héphaïstos ; et ces choses-là devinrent les os blancs,
Tenus ensemble par les colles divines d'Harmonie.

L'os serait composé de deux parts de la « brillance de Nestis » (δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων [...] Νήστιδος αἴγλης) – où l'on s'accorde à reconnaître l'eau sous le nom de Nestis –, de quatre parts de feu – puisque Héphaïstos désigne traditionnellement le feu (τέσσαρα δ' Ἡφαίστοιο) – et de deux parts de terre (ἤ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος) pour parvenir à huit parts au total.

Dans le présent article, je voudrais analyser le texte du fr. 96 pour prendre position sur la question suivante : quel est le sens à donner à l'expression Νήστιδος αἴγλης, c’est-à-dire « la brillance de Nestis » ? La brillance de Nestis désigne-t-elle l'eau, ou bien un mélange d'air et d'eau ?

Certaines questions divisent les commentateurs actuels d'Empédocle, mais la question de la brillance de Nestis n'en fait pas partie. En effet, tout le monde ou presque s'accorde pour dire que la brillance de Nestis désigne l'eau et rien d'autre. Pourquoi alors s'interroger sur quelque chose qui ne divise point ? Parce que le consensus est parfois trompeur. Il peut se fixer sur la solution simple, celle qui ne nécessite presque pas ou peu d'explication. Mais à l'analyse, l'objet peut se révéler complexe, et le consensus sur le simple avoir fait fausse route.

J'espère parvenir à montrer au fil de cet article que la brillance de Nestis est un mélange d'air et d'eau, et non pas simplement de l'eau.

Si Empédocle n'avait pas introduit la brillance (αἴγλη), aucun doute n'aurait été permis pour comprendre que τῶ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων [...] Νήστιδος signifie deux parts sur huit d'eau. Mais la brillance pose problème. Elle pose d'autant plus problème que la tournure τῶ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων [...] Νήστιδος αἴγλης insiste sur le fait que les deux parts en question sont des parts de la brillance et non pas directement des parts de Nestis. Peut-on spontanément dire que pour Empédocle, Nestis apparaît brillante, tout comme Apollon est brillant (αἰγλήτης), tout comme Artémis et Hécate sont dispensatrices de lumière (φωσφόρος) ?

Si la brillance n'ajoutait rien à la compréhension de Nestis, la « brillance de Nestis » se réduirait à une façon poétique de dire Nestis. Si, au contraire, la brillance ajoutait quelque chose à Nestis, l'élément qui n'est pas nommé dans le fr. 96, à savoir l'air, pourrait être sous-entendu dans la brillance de Nestis.

Nous avons formulé une interprétation en faveur de l'air dans la composition de l'os. La conclusion n'en serait que renforcée si nous pouvions nous appuyer sur un témoignage ancien, différent de celui du Pseudo-Simplicius, voire de Philopon, qu'il est facile de mettre en doute. Ce témoignage existe. Il a été jusqu'ici traité avec indifférence et parfois dévalorisé. C'est celui de Théophraste.

Théophraste, critiquant Empédocle, dit que chez cet auteur les os et les poils devraient avoir des sensations puisqu'ils sont formés de tous les éléments (De sensibus, ΧΧΙΠ = A86.23). En d'autres termes, selon Théophraste, les os sont formés des quatre éléments, et les poils de même. Les modernes n'ont pas jugé bon de partir de Théophraste pour contredire Aétius et pour affirmer que l'os doit être composé des quatre éléments.

Il n'y a guère de doute que pour Empédocle, il existe des mélanges qui ne comportent pas les quatre éléments. Prenons quelques exemples : le bronze produit par l'alliage de l'étain et du cuivre (fr. 92), le vin mélangé à de l'eau (fr. 91), les couleurs résultant d'un mélange des couleurs de base (fr. 23), la pâte servant à faire le pain (fr. 34), la boue ou la pâte de poterie (fr. 73), l'eau salée de la mer (fr. 55, 56), etc.

Mais quand il s'agit des êtres vivant sur terre, il est permis de penser que Philotès fait chaque mélange sans exclure aucun élément, à l'instar du sang et des chairs (fr. 98). En effet, l'œuvre de l'Amour réalisée dans ces êtres éphémères semble préfigurer le grand vivant, composé des quatre éléments, qu'est le Sphairos. Pour les êtres vivants et éphémères, les parts pourraient être inégales dans chaque organe, mais tous les éléments être néanmoins présents.

Tout cela, certes, n'est que pure hypothèse. Aucun texte n'affirme que pour Empédocle, toutes les parties des vivants sont un mélange des quatre éléments. Une certitude demeure : on ne peut déconsidérer la parole de Théophraste sur l'os, ce même Théophraste qui disait que pour Empédocle, l'eau est noire.
[introduction p. 75-77/conclusion p. 99-100]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Kn8BmLiIsvQZnjb

La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs , 2007
By: Goulet, Richard, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)

Title	La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2007
Published in	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Pages	29-62
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Goulet, Richard
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

Mais face à tous les facteurs matériels, sociologiques, historiques qui précarisaient la transmission de ces textes et provoquaient de siècle en siècle la disparition de nombre d’entre eux, il s’est trouvé à tous les âges des esprits suffisamment éclairés pour en saisir la valeur et en assurer la copie ou au moins la conservation, et d’autres encore pour les traduire en diverses langues, les paraphraser, les annoter et les commenter, parfois même s’en inspirer pour construire leur propre philosophie.

Pour nous aussi, qui affrontons à notre tour de nouveaux supports, c’est peut-être cette activité fondamentale de transmission de l’héritage antique qui restera notre plus grand titre de gloire. Nous pourrons dire à nos successeurs, s’il s’en trouve : nous vous transmettons ce que nous avons reçu, nous avons essayé d’y mettre un peu d’ordre, nous avons édité et traduit ces textes, nous avons ajouté des gloses pour expliquer ce que nos contemporains n’étaient plus en mesure de comprendre facilement, nous n’avons pas nous-mêmes tout compris, mais tout est bien là. [conclusion p. 61]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mQmvNRD4MKEBc5h

La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2017
Journal	Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques
Volume	101
Pages	569-584
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Physics II 2, 193b35–194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one.

In a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter.

The Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or "form in itself," which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CX8My3vkHJrymmk

La dottrina dell’autocoscienza nel commentario al De anima attribuito a Simplicio, 2013
By: Militello, Chiara

Title	La dottrina dell’autocoscienza nel commentario al De anima attribuito a Simplicio
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2013
Publication Place	Acireale; Roma
Publisher	Bonanno
Series	Cultura e formazione; Filosofia
Volume	24
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Militello, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Il presente volume tratta del commentario al De anima di Aristotele che la tradizione manoscritta ascrive a Simplicio e che alcuni studiosi hanno attribuito a Prisciano Lido, e in particolare della concezione dell'autocoscienza del senso, della ragione e dell'intelletto ivi esposta. I passi rilevanti sono messi a confronto con quelli degli altri commentari neoplatonici al De anima rimastici al fine di evidenziare la peculiarità delle teorie che "Simplicio" ha elaborato per conciliare le tesi aristoteliche e la tradizione platonica. Da questo studio emerge l'importanza del commentario di "Simplicio", in cui viene presentata una teoria innovativa sui diversi modi in cui l'anima umana conosce se stessa e le proprie attività.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nKjLFiYMWmnkop1

La fin du Néoplatonisme Hellénique. Mise au point sur la question, 2002
By: Saihi, Sofian

Title	La fin du Néoplatonisme Hellénique. Mise au point sur la question
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2002
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	20
Issue	2
Pages	83-110
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Saihi, Sofian
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

D'après M. Tardieu, donc, c'est également là que Simplicius, son maître Damascius, et les autres auraient définitivement élu domicile. Accueillis au sein, ou à l'origine eux-mêmes, d'une école néoplatonicienne, ils auraient continué à vivre, travailler et enseigner ensemble à Harrân. Ils auraient été, en somme, chez eux parmi des populations encore attachées au paganisme. Ils s'y seraient sentis bien et auraient décidé d'y rester.

Au vu de ses propres déductions, Ilsetraut Hadot n'a pu rester indifférente aux résultats des travaux de Michel Tardieu. Elle le suit et le soutient ardemment. Et des chercheurs comme Pierre Chuvin, Lambros Couloubaritsis ou Alain de Libéra se sont rangés de leur côté. Par ailleurs, peu de critiques sont venues réfuter ses travaux. Certes, Luc Brisson, Paul Foulkes et, plus sérieusement, Simone Van Riet les ont mis en question. Mais Ilsetraut Hadot a su dissiper leurs doutes sans trop de difficulté.

Par conséquent, bien que l'hypothèse de Michel Tardieu reste encore à asseoir plus solidement, si nous admettons avec lui que Damascius et ses compagnons ont emporté les pénates du néoplatonisme à Harrân, nous devrions retrouver les vestiges d'un tel foyer. Nous insinuons par là que si ces lieux ont bel et bien abrité une école néoplatonicienne, il doit nécessairement en subsister des traces tangibles. Une empreinte que nous pourrions peut-être relever dans la pensée philosophique musulmane et dont il faudrait établir les rapports avec la doctrine des Sâbiens. À cette fin, il semble primordial de se pencher sur la première philosophie en terre d'Islam. Par une telle élucidation, nous serions alors en mesure de dégager les structures profondes du néoplatonisme qui y subsistent et, pourquoi pas, déterminer par quelle voie oblique cette doctrine a bien pu cheminer entre l'Antiquité tardive et le Moyen Âge. [conclusion p. 108-110]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dUsC8Irj8dUfNHy

La pensée s'exprime «grâce» à l'être (Parménide, fr. 8.35), 2004
By: Cordero, Néstor-Luis

Title	La pensée s'exprime «grâce» à l'être (Parménide, fr. 8.35)
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2004
Journal	Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger
Volume	194
Issue	1
Pages	5-13
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Peu de temps après la mort de son père spirituel, Platon n'hésite pas à rendre un hommage appuyé au « vénérable et redoutable » Parménide ; mais, en même temps, il ne peut pas s'empêcher d'avouer : étant donné sa profondeur (bathos), « je crains tout à la fois que ses paroles, nous ne les comprenions pas, et que ce qu'il pensait en les prononçant nous dépasse beaucoup plus ». Mais ce que Platon ne dit pas, c'est que cette difficulté l'a poussé à essayer de déchiffrer le logos parménidien. Vingt-cinq siècles après, Marcel Conche en a fait autant, et c'est sur le chemin de Parménide que j'ai eu la chance et le grand honneur de faire sa connaissance. Et je peux témoigner que Platon avait raison : la pensée de Parménide nous a tellement dépassés qu'elle a pu être à l'origine d'interprétations très diverses et, même si l'Éléate était surpris d'apprendre qu'il était à la fois un et multiple, il faut admettre que le chemin de recherche qu'il a inauguré reste ouvert, car sa richesse est inépuisable.

Le dialogue que je voudrais entamer avec Marcel Conche concerne l'un des passages les plus controversés du Poème, l'énigmatique vers 8.35. Nous nous sommes occupés de ce texte dans notre travail Les deux chemins de Parménide, et Marcel Conche a commenté avec perspicacité notre interprétation, mais il n'a pas été convaincu par le texte que nous proposons de suivre à la place du texte traditionnel. Je voudrais renforcer les arguments donnés il y a quelques années dans le travail cité ci-dessus, car les échos de la lecture (il ne s'agit pas d'une conjecture) que nous proposons n'ont été que très restreints, malgré les points obscurs que notre solution permet d'éclairer. Regardons donc le contexte de ce passage. [introduction p. 5-6]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GrJltxCHr2iNGon

La postérité arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm, 2014
By: Vallat, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)

Title	La postérité arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2014
Published in	Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique
Pages	240-264
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Vallat, Philippe
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pjkBxNt8HyD0f6J

La puissance de l'intelligible: la théorie plotinienne des Formes au miroir de l'héritage médioplatonicien, 2015
By: Michalewski, Alexandra

Title	La puissance de l'intelligible: la théorie plotinienne des Formes au miroir de l'héritage médioplatonicien
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2015
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy
Volume	1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Michalewski, Alexandra
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L'ouvrage propose une histoire de l’interprétation de la nature des Formes intelligibles d’Antiochus à Plotin. Il met en lumière l’importance du refus plotinien de l’artificialisme médioplatonicien qui considère les Formes comme des pensées du dieu et subordonne leur causalité à celle du démiurge, fabricant du monde. En considérant les Formes comme des réalités vivantes et intellectives, Plotin bouleverse le sens de la causalité paradigmatique de l’intelligible. Il reprend les concepts de la théologie aristotélicienne, les détourne et les met au service d’une théorie de la causalité des intelligibles qui répond aux objections du Stagirite contre l’hypothèse des Formes. S’appuyant sur l’identité de l’intellect et des intelligibles, il montre que c’est précisément en restant en elles-mêmes que les Formes exercent une puissance générative, productrice du sensible. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xzSLdm0SmNASjln

La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Baghdassarian, Fabienne (Ed.)

Title	La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse
Pages	239-256
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Baghdassarian, Fabienne
Translator(s)

This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comnène. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE

La teoria dell’intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teoﬁlo Zimara, 2013
By: De Carli, Manuel

Title	La teoria dell’intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teoﬁlo Zimara
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2013
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	De Carli, Manuel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper describes the doctrine of the intellect developed by the physician and philosopher Teofilo Zimara in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, published in 1584 by the Giuntas, identifying the Platonism and Neoplatonism of Simplicius as the main features of his psychology. The essay then points out how Zimara's speculative suggestion fully inscribes itself in the disputes between Simplicianists and Averroists, which erupted within the School of Padua and then spread to other centers of culture of that time, forming an essential element of Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century. [author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mNF1lCUefItzKac

Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education, 2018
By: Griffin, Michael, Benedikt Strobel (Ed.)

Title	Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	127-157
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael
Editor(s)	Benedikt Strobel
Translator(s)

(I) I begin with a brief reflection on the intersection of pedagogical practice and inquiry in antiquity, then (II) briefly explore the theme of how common notions or ἔννοιαι might be shaped and reshaped by the philosopher who comes into contact with the "great texts" of the past or with a good teacher, in Plotinus and Simplicius, and (III) conclude by considering the historical background of Simplicius’ attitude to past philosophers, and to what extent it might be considered as informed by earlier Aristotelian or Stoic practices.

I focus on the interface between philosophical education and research in the commentator Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 490–c. 560 CE). Simplicius is well known as an interpreter (ἐξηγητής) of the formative texts of Hellenic philosophy (a function whose qualifications he outlines at In Cat. 7, 23–29), and he regards the philosophical commentary as an important vehicle for what we might regard as "research" or inquiry into an array of subjects. Simplicius also treats commentary as a useful tool for pedagogy. A student who reads a book like Epictetus’ Handbook may advance in virtue (Simp., In Epict. pr. 87–90); Simplicius’ interpretation is a useful guide, a facilitator on the way.

In both these areas—discovery and pedagogy—I try to outline a common psychological theory underlying the function attributed to the commentator: A pupil who engages in dialectic with a teacher, or with the "greats" of the past, may recover the natural, undistorted concepts (ἔννοιαι) that were her birthright before they were distorted by the fall of the soul and the rattle and hum of our quotidian experience (illustrated by Simplicius in an evocative passage at In Cat. 12, 10–13, 4). [introduction p. 127-128]

Online Resources

Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence, 2011
By: Clucas, Stephen (Ed.), Forshaw, Peter J. (Ed.), Rees, Valery (Ed.)

Title	Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Series	Brill's Studies in Intellectual History
Volume	198
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Clucas, Stephen , Forshaw, Peter J. , Rees, Valery
Translator(s)

This collection of essays honours Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) as a Platonic philosopher. Ficino was not the first translator of Plato in the Renaissance, but he was the first to translate the entire corpus of Platonic works, and to emphasise their relevance for contemporary readers. The present work is divided into two sections: the first explores aspects of Ficino’s own thought and the sources which he used. The second section follows aspects of his influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The papers presented here deepen and enrich our understanding of Ficino, and of the philosophical tradition in which he was working, and they offer a new platform for future studies on Ficino and his legacy in Renaissance philosophy.

Contributors include: Unn Irene Aasdalen, Constance Blackwell, Paul Richard Blum, Stephen Clucas, Ruth Clydesdale, Brian Copenhaver, John Dillon, Peter J. Forshaw, James Hankins, Hiro Hirai, Sarah Klitenic Wear, David Leech, Letizia Panizza, Valery Rees, and Stéphane Toussaint. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/J4IFZHaUYcFnYSe

Title	Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interprétation néoplatonicienne de « ce qui dépend de nous »
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	103-125
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

This text discusses Simplicius' commentary on the first chapter of Epictetus' Manual, focusing selectively on a specific part of its development. The commentary examines the initial two sentences of the chapter, addressing the distinction between things within human control and those beyond it. This division leads to a classification of rational souls into first souls, which remain consistently oriented towards the Good, and human rational souls. The latter are characterized by their capacity for choice (deliberate choice or προαίρεσις), which is absent in immobile entities and irrational beings. Simplicius emphasizes that the nature of human rational souls allows them to either align with higher ontological realities or be drawn towards lower ones. The freedom of choice extends even to choosing evil, albeit often misguided by the appearance of apparent good. The concept of "what depends on us" is explicated as referring specifically to this deliberate choice. Simplicius' Neoplatonic interpretation culminates in a discussion defending human free will against objections that attribute actions to chance or necessity. While the commentary is not complete, this abstract concludes with the clarification that Simplicius' ontological exposition pertains solely to human rational souls. Further elaboration on objections and responses is anticipated in subsequent sections of the commentary. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4

Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	47-87
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius, 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 metriopathie 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). Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, 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, Jamblique et Proclus. David (Élias) pour sa part nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès.

Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète, 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 (προτρεπτικοί). Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d’exhortations non techniques aptes à fournir l’instruction éthique préparatoire dont le débutant en philosophie devait déjà être imprégné. Dès lors, il fallait qu’il interprète le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l’éthique stoïcienne culminant dans l’apatheia du sage stoïcien, comme cela aurait été normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie péripatéticienne.

En procédant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le système éthique néoplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d’une manière tout à fait étonnante et sans jointure apparente, l’éthique du stoïcisme, évidemment sans ses bases matérialistes, l’éthique de l’Ancienne Académie et l’éthique péripatéticienne. Le néoplatonisme avait admis en effet, à partir de Porphyre, l’existence de quatre degrés de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus « politiques » ou « civiles » ou « pratiques », impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c’est-à-dire la metriopathie péripatéticienne. En revanche, les degrés de vertu supérieurs se fondaient sur l’apatheia stoïcienne.

Comme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s’adressaient à des débutants, cette œuvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la préparation au premier degré des vertus, donc aux vertus « civiles » ou « politiques » régies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caractérisent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropriées, comme leur nom l’indique, au citoyen vertueux, c’est-à-dire à quelqu’un qui prend activement part à la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d’après les péripatéticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe néoplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou même les vertus théorétiques.

L’homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l’explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-même, c’est-à-dire sur son âme raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-même, donc vers son âme raisonnable, de vouloir réaliser cette « conversion », est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu’un qui est désormais désireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c’est à ce genre d’hommes que s’adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxième partie du Manuel (à partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s’agit pas de ceux qui seraient déjà en possession des vertus cathartiques ni même des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progrès vers l’acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagnée de l’étude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la même la première condition pour pouvoir plus tard, après s’être longuement familiarisés avec les études philosophiques, acquérir les vertus cathartiques.

Le Manuel d’Épictète s’adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une première partie, à ceux qui n’ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer à purifier leurs mœurs et leur âme, autrement dit, à soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles à la raison. La deuxième partie concernerait ceux qui ont déjà fait des progrès sur le chemin qui mène à la domination des passions et commencent à s’intéresser à la philosophie elle-même. Dans les deux cas, il s’agit de débutants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s’initier à la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JJVi9durYJt0iuG

Le dédicataire d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm, 2014
By: Vallat, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)

Title	Le dédicataire d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2014
Published in	Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique
Pages	102-129
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Vallat, Philippe
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FUC3RJY9ty0CDoV

Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique, 2014
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2014
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76

Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'école d'Athènes, 2002
By: Beauchamp, Joëlle, Déroche, Vincent (Ed.)

Title	Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'école d'Athènes
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2002
Published in	Mélanges Gilbert Dagron
Pages	21-35
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Beauchamp, Joëlle
Editor(s)	Déroche, Vincent
Translator(s)

The closing of the Neoplatonic school of Athens and the two sources (John Malalas and Agathias) on the basis of which this event has been reconstructed have provoked numerous commentaries and queries. However, one element in the narrative of Malalas has apparently escaped notice. By connecting this element with two texts from the Code of Justinian, the author proposes the date of 22 September 529 for the imperial legislation forbidding the teaching of philosophy in Athens. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o4RX5UFx8ZQlU6Y

Le σκοπός du traité aristotélicien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Exégèse, dialectique, théologie, 2015
By: Hoffmann, Philippe

Title	Le σκοπός du traité aristotélicien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Exégèse, dialectique, théologie
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2015
Journal	Studia graeco-arabica
Volume	5
Pages	27-51
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

A six-page Prologue introduces the commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo written by Simplicius after 529 AD. As usual in the exegeses typical of the Neoplatonic schools of late Antiquity, this Prologue addresses a series of preliminary
questions that are meant to steer the interpretation in its entirety, as well as to frame the text to be commented upon within the reading canon of the Aristotelian works, which were intended to provide the propaedeutics to the reading canon of Plato’s dialogues. Simplicius addresses the question of the scope of De Caelo, discussing the interpretations advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, and Syrianus. According to Alexander, this treatise deals with the universe as a whole, as well as with the five simple bodies contained in it. It was with Iamblichus, who advocated the idea that for each Platonic dialogue there was only one skopos, that the unity of a philosophical work was raised
to the rank of a general rule. According to Iamblichus, the skopos of the De Caelo is the divine body of heaven. As a consequence, the primary elements that depend upon the heavens are included in the treatise. Syrianus deepens
the theological tendency implied in Iamblichus’ interpretation: for him, the skopos of the De Caelo is primarily the divine body of heaven, and only secondarily the set of sublunar elements. Simplicius treasures the commentary by
Alexander; nevertheless, he questions the skopos assigned by him: Alexander underestimated the importance of the unity of the treatise, even though his intention to account for each and every question raised by Aristotle was laudable. Contrarily, Syrianus was right in emphasizing the theological vein of the De Caelo, but focussed only on the section on the divine body of heaven, playing down books III and IV as if they were only ancillary, thus forgetting that the skopos must account for the whole of the treatise at hand. Between the two positions, Simplicius advocates the idea of a synthetical skopos, following in the footsteps of Iamblichus’ interpretation, but taking systematically into account the best of Alexander’s. The skopos of the De Caelo is the divine heaven, that “communicates” its perfections to the
entire universe. Simplicius’ position is revealed to be very different with respect to that of other commentators like Ammonius and Philoponus, who both considered that the title was self-evident and required no special investigation. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IkThMj3dyL4pqPR

Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à La Physique d’Aristote: Tradition et Innovation, 2008
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à La Physique d’Aristote: Tradition et Innovation
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2008
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina
Volume	3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In der griechischen Spätantike definiert sich die Philosophie vor allem über die Auslegung autoritativer Texte wie der Dialoge Platons oder der Abhandlungen des Aristoteles. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die letzten spätantiken Kommentare des Heiden Simplikios und des Christen Philoponos (beide 6. Jh. n.Chr.) zu Aristoteles’ Physik untersucht. Golitsis zeigt auf, wie unterschiedlich die beiden Zeitgenossen die philosophische Tradition bewerten undwelchunterschiedlichen Wegzur Wahrheitsfindung sie daraus ableiten. Der Autor wurde für dieses Buch mit dem "Prix Zographos" der "Association pour l'Encouragement des Études Grecques" ausgezeichnet. [author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p4M88GaW4sKfDxE

Les bibliothèques philosophiques d’après le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles, 2007
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)

Title	Les bibliothèques philosophiques d’après le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2007
Published in	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Pages	135-153
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

L’enquête que nous venons de mener est semée d’incertitudes, et elle est souvent aporétique. Mais quelques conclusions peuvent être tirées de façon prudente.

L’enseignement dispensé dans les écoles néoplatoniciennes suivait un programme qui, depuis les diverses propédeutiques jusqu’à l’étude des poèmes “révélés”, impliquait l’usage de livres – le programme pouvant être interprété comme une sorte de “catalogue idéal”. La pratique du commentaire, essentielle dans ces milieux, semble s’être accompagnée, dans certains cas du moins, d’un usage de manuscrits – sans doute de grand format – dans les marges desquels étaient consignés des développements exégétiques (et l’on aimerait mieux savoir quel type d’écriture pouvait être alors utilisé : faut-il imaginer parfois un recours à une micrographie, comme dans l’exemple byzantin du Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 35, copié pour Aréthas vers 900 ?).

Sur certains dossiers, comme celui de l’origine des modèles de la “Collection philosophique” (la bibliothèque de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Alexandrie ?), la recherche a progressé, mettant en lumière le rôle probable de Stéphanos d’Alexandrie dans le transfert à Constantinople, au début du VIIᵉ siècle, des modèles tardo-antiques de la Collection.

Cet exemple montre que l’on peut attendre, au gré des recherches, un progrès de nos connaissances, par-delà les considérations souvent hypothétiques qui ont été ici présentées. [conclusion p. 152-153]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Yfl8Gt8Sgf5xdCH

Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive, 2012
By: Perrot, Arnaud (Ed.)

Title	Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2012
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Rue d'Ulm
Series	Études de littérature ancienne
Volume	20
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Perrot, Arnaud
Translator(s)

Les modernes ont souvent opposé les chrétiens à l’hellénisme. Les auteurs antiques eux-mêmes – qu’ils soient « Grecs » ou chrétiens – semblent avoir thématisé leur antagonisme. Que vaut cette ligne de fracture ? Qu’est-ce qu’être Grec à la fin de l’Antiquité ? Pour quelles raisons un chrétien hellénophone, passé par les écoles de l’Empire et nourri de paideia, ne saurait-il être un Grec, au même titre que les autres ? Qui donne, qui revendique et qui refuse ce titre – et pourquoi ? Les termes dans lesquels le sujet est posé ne sont ni simples, ni neutres. La notion d’hellénisme, qui peut paraître moins confessionnelle que celle de « paganisme », est en réalité marquée par les conflits religieux des époques hellénistique et tardive. Ce sont, on le montrera, les besoins de l’autodéfinition et l’élaboration de la polémique contre l’Autre qui conditionnent les rapports entre les chrétiens et « l’hellénisme ». Cet ouvrage porte une attention particulière au but poursuivi par les auteurs anciens dans chacune de leurs déclarations identitaires, entre langue commune et particularisme religieux. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9Fs2iPPdApqIvv7

Les conséquences tragiques pour Parménide d'une erreur d'Aristote, 2024
By: Nestor-Luis Cordero

Title	Les conséquences tragiques pour Parménide d'une erreur d'Aristote
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2024
Journal	Journal of Ancient Philosophy
Volume	18
Issue	1
Pages	1-24
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Nestor-Luis Cordero
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The difficulty of grasping the thought of Parmenides led interpreters already in antiquity to approach his philosophy according to later schemes of thought. This was the case of Aristotle, whose interpretation was inherited by his disciple Theophrastus and by his commentators, especially Simplicius. Simplicius, a Neoplatonist and Aristotelian at the same time, proposed an interpretation, strongly dualistic (dominated by the sensible/intelligible dichotomy), which is not found in the recovered quotations. The origin of this interpretation is an "error" of Aristotle, inherited by Simplicius, who attributed to Parmenides himself the paternity of the "opinions of mortals". In 1795 G.G.Fülleborn, inspired by Simplicius, proposed a division of the Poem into two "parts", unanimously accepted today, and which must be urgently revised and rejected. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RcInmMNzff21NUZ

Les fragments, 2008
By: Laks, André

Title	Les fragments
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2008
Published in
Pages	62-71, 118-125, 132-159, 198-201
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

A commentary of Fragments in Simplicius: Fragment 4 (B2 FK); Fragment 5 (B7 DK); T3 a and b (A7 and 13A4 DK); T4 (A5 DK); T8 (A19 DK); T23a, b, c, and d (A10 and 13A11 DK); T24 (A10  DK)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Du6NCbF1wmtuJiM

Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	127-141
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan général du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte à la discipline du désir. Il invite, sous une forme imagée, à ne pas s’attacher aux personnes qui nous sont chères, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires.

Dans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en présence d’une comparaison, parabole ou allégorie. Une allégorie est, pourrait-on dire, une métaphore prolongée. Les parties d’un ensemble structuré et cohérent de réalités ou d’événements (A), ici l’escale d’un navire dans un port, correspondent terme à terme aux parties d’un autre ensemble structuré de réalités ou d’événements (B), ici la vie humaine. L’auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre à son lecteur, que la conduite que l’on est obligé d’avoir dans l’ensemble B doit être analogue à celle qui nous semble nécessaire dans l’ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH

Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation, 2017
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.), Michalewski, Alexandra (Ed.)

Title	Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2017
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Series	Monothéisme et philosophie
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine , Michalewski, Alexandra
Translator(s)

Ce volume étudie les mutations de sens que la notion de principe a connues au sein de la cosmologie platonicienne, depuis l’ancienne Académie jusqu’au néoplatonisme tardif. Dans cet intervalle, la question de la nature et du nombre des principes cosmologiques est apparue comme un enjeu central de la défense du platonisme, dans sa confrontation avec les écoles rivales, mais aussi, à partir de l’époque impériale, avec le christianisme. Au sein de cette histoire, les critiques et réceptions aristotéliciennes ont joué un rôle déterminant et ont, d'un certain point de vue, préparé le tournant inauguré par Plotin : de Théophraste, qui le premier articule la causalité du Premier Moteur et l'héritage platonicien des Formes intelligibles, à Alexandre d'Aphrodise, qui critique l'anthropomorphisme inhérent aux théories providentialistes des platoniciens impériaux, les exégètes péripatéticiens ont ouvert des pistes qui seront adaptées et transformées à travers les différents systèmes néoplatoniciens. Reprenant à Alexandre sa critique des conceptions artificialistes de la cosmologie platonicienne, Plotin s'oppose à lui pour défendre l'efficience causale des Formes intelligibles, qu'il définit comme des réalités vivantes et intellectives, en les insérant dans un système de dérivation de toutes choses depuis l'Un. À sa suite, les différents diadoques néoplatoniciens placeront la vie au cœur du monde intelligible, définissant les Formes comme des réalités vivantes et intellectives dotées d’une efficience propre　: la puissance de faire advenir des réalités dérivées.  [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xevkNHC2VXe7Wgm

Les prières en prose de Simplicius, entre rhétorique et théologie, 2020
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.), Timotin, Andrei (Ed.)

Title	Les prières en prose de Simplicius, entre rhétorique et théologie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2020
Published in	Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité
Pages	209-267
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe , Timotin, Andrei
Translator(s)

Les prières en prose de Simplicius, quant à elles, appartiennent toutes à la catégorie des prières conclusives – dont le modèle est fourni par la prière à Pan à la fin du Phèdre de Platon, qui est une référence pour les prières philosophiques 158. De ce point de vue, formel, elles peuvent être rapprochées de la prière finale de la Réponse à Por-
phyre  (De  Mysteriis)  de Jamblique, ou de tel « hymne » en prose de Proclus  marquant  une  césure  importante  dans  la  Théologie  Platoni-
cienne 159. Les autres prières néoplatoniciennes que nous avons citées ou évoquées sont soit des prières initiales soit des prières intervenant 
dans  le  cours  même  d’une  œuvre.  Mais  la  comparaison  entre  toutes  ces prières – souvent complexes – et celles de Simplicius n’est pas 
illégitime et fait apparaître une indéniable parenté : Simplicius s’inscrit dans une tradition spécifiquement néoplatonicienne, où la rhéto-
rique de la prière sert à l’expression d’un savoir théologique et d’une forme de piété personnelle dont le lecteur contemporain entend encore 
les accents. Ses prières sont tout à la fois des prières philosophiques et littéraires, des prières personnelles, des prières demandant des grâces 
particulières, mais aussi de véritables prières cultuelles, dans la mesure où, comme tous les professeurs néoplatoniciens, Simplicius célèbre 
par ses commentaires une véritable liturgie en l’honneur des dieux; et l’on a remarqué aussi l’affleurement d’une dimension théurgique 
que ses prières partagent avec les Hymnes de Proclus.  Ces  différentes catégories ne doivent pas être opposées, car elles se fondent 
ici dans l’unité dynamique de l’acte de parole, qui est aussi un élan de l’âme. Car si ces prières sont des textes écrits, leur vertu anagogique ne peut s’actualiser que dans la vibration sonore et les rythmes révélés par l’analyse stylistique, qui demandent à être prononcés et entendus. 
Le raffinement de l’écriture, ici, appelle une oralisation, et l’on se plaît à imaginer que Simplicius a pu, au moins en son privé, peut-être dans un discours « mental », prononcer ces prières et les faire résonner. Mais  parce  que  ses  prières  sont  l’achèvement  de  commentaires 
destinés à des « commençants » et non à des philosophes confirmés, Simplicius  s’en  tient  à  des  déclarations  théologiques  élémentaires  et  
s’exprime de façon beaucoup plus sobre que Jamblique ou Proclus ; son  style  clair  et  simple  parvient  à  maîtriser  la  solennité  qui  est  de  
règle dans des adresses aux dieux 163, mais comme ses prédécesseurs néoplatoniciens  il  ordonne  chacune  de  ses  prières  au  dieu  ou  aux 
dieux qui veillent, de façon précise, sur l’ordre de réalité visé par son enseignement. À  tous  ces  dieux  Simplicius  demande  un  accompagnement  bienveillant et une aide sur la voie d’une ἀναγωγή indissolublement scientifique et spirituelle qui dépassera la discursivité et à son terme n’aura 
plus besoin du langage, ni même de prière, car elle s’accomplira dans le Silence. [conclusion, pp. 264-267]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eXg1Z7UIknMFhi4

Leucippus, Democritus and the οὐ μᾶλλον Principle: An Examination of Theophrastus Phys.Op. Fr. 8, 2002
By: Schofield, Malcom

Title	Leucippus, Democritus and the οὐ μᾶλλον Principle: An Examination of Theophrastus Phys.Op. Fr. 8
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	47
Issue	3
Pages	253–263
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper is a   piece of detective work. Starting from an obvious excrescence inthe transmitted text of Simplicius's   treatment of the foundations of Presocraticatomism near the beginning of his Physicscommentary, it excavates a Theophrasteancorrection to Aristotle's   tendency to lump Leucippus and Democritus together: Theophrastus made application of the οὐ μᾶλλον principle in the sphere of ontol-ogy an innovation by Democritus. Along the way it  shows Simplicius reorderinghis Theophrastean source in his efforts to nd material which will strengthen thecontrast between Leucippus's   atomism and Eleatic metaphysics. And it  arguesthat in doing so he all but obliterates TheophrastusÕs   attempt to point up theDemocritean credentials of the οὐ μᾶλλον principle. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Zo6uxvsH3eJYKMj

Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World, 2017
By: Roskam, Geert (Ed.), Verheyden, Joseph (Ed.)

Title	Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2017
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Series	Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity
Volume	104
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Roskam, Geert , Verheyden, Joseph
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RheO6AHLHlNX3zp

Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 2021
By: Harari, Orna

Title	Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2021
Journal	History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume	24
Issue	1
Pages	122-139
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Harari, Orna
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius’ use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle’s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius’ assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle’s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle’s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach. [conclusion, p. 138]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/agke78hkU27DIVu

Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements, 2012
By: Opsomer, Jan

Title	Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	23
Pages	65-106
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Late ancient Platonists discuss two theories in which geometric entities explain natural 
phenomena :  the  regular  polyhedra  of  geometric  atomism  and  the  eccentrics  and  epicycles 
of astronomy. Simplicius explicitly compares the status of the first to the hypotheses of the astronomers. The point of comparison is the fallibility of both theories, not the (lack of) reality 
of the entities postulated. Simplicius has strong realist commitments as far as astronomy is concerned. Syrianus and Proclus too do not consider the polyhedra as devoid of physical reality. Proclus rejects epicycles and eccentrics, but accepts the reality of material homocentric spheres, moved by their own souls. The spheres move the astral objects contained in them, which, however, add motions caused by their own souls. The epicyclical and eccntric hypotheses are useful, as they help us to understand the complex motions resulting from the interplay of spherical motions and volitional motions of the planets. Yet astral souls do not think in accordance with human theoretical constructs, but rather grasp the complex patterns of their motions directly. Our understanding of astronomy depends upon our own cognition of intelligible patterns and their mathematical images. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NrliupadtaqUhIR

Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories, 2008
By: Newton, Lloyd A. (Ed.)

Title	Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Newton, Lloyd A.
Translator(s)

Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of "doing philosophy," and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.

Online Resources

Megaric Metaphysics, 2012
By: Bailey, Dominic

Title	Megaric Metaphysics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Ancient philosophy
Volume	32
Issue	2
Pages	303-321
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bailey, Dominic
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first.

Moreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YNcy1URcz4PUK83

Title	Metaphysicizing the Aristotelian Categories. Two References to the Parmenides in Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories (Simplicius, In Categorias 4 [CAG 8, 75,6 Kalbfleisch] and In Categorias 8 [291,2 K.])
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum
Volume	12
Issue	1
Pages	150-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bechtle, Gerald
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Der Artikel geht der Frage nach, inwiefern die aristotelische Kategorienschrift im Neuplatonismus zur Deutung der ersten Prinzipien genutzt und dadurch selbst als Teil metaphysischer Überlegungen etabliert wurde. Dadurch stellt sich die Frage, ob eine Verbindung mit der Rezeption von Platons Parmenides besteht, der für die Deutung der höchsten Prinzipien grundlegend war. Dies wird exemplarisch an Simplicius und dessen Kategorienkommentar untersucht. In diesem geht Simplicius an zwei Stellen explizit auf Platons Parmenides ein. Beide Stellen werden analysiert. Es zeigt sich, dass Simplicius die Terminologie der Kategorien durchaus auf Gott, das Gute oder das Eine anwendet, auch wenn an der weit verbreiteten Ansicht, die Kategorien könnten sich nur auf sprachlich ausdrückbare, also wahrnehmbare Dinge beziehen, nicht gerüttelt wird.

Hiervon ist jedoch die Position des Iamblichus zu unterscheiden, der die Kategorien auch für den noetischen Bereich annehmen konnte. In eine ähnliche Richtung weist die zweite explizite Bezugnahme auf Platons Parmenides in Simplicius’ Kategorienkommentar, die sich mit dem Ausschluss von Mehr-Weniger beschäftigt. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8GUIq8DJVD3GuiA

Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg, 2002
By: Kobusch, Theo (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)

Title	Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2002
Publication Place	München - Leipzig
Publisher	Saur
Series	Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Volume	160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Kobusch, Theo , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)

Die Beiträge zur Altertumskunde enthalten Monographien, Sammelbände, Editionen, Übersetzungen und Kommentare zu Themen aus den Bereichen Klassische, Mittel- und Neulateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte, Archäologie, Antike Philosophie sowie Nachwirken der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Dadurch leistet die Reihe einen umfassenden Beitrag zur Erschließung klassischer Literatur und zur Forschung im gesamten Gebiet der Altertumswissenschaften. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lv1Opvh3eZrvkIS

Methods in examining sense-perception: John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius, 2008
By: Lautner, Peter

Title	Methods in examining sense-perception: John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Laval théologique et philosophique
Volume	64
Issue	3
Pages	651-661
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lautner, Peter
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The paper discusses the methods applied by Philoponus and Pseudo-Simplicius in commenting on Aristotle’s theory of sense-perception, and indicates their differences. Philoponus frequently employs medical theories and empirical material, mostly taken from Aristotle, to highlight not only the activities of the particular senses, but also a certain kind of awareness and the way we experience our inner states. By contrast, his Athenian contemporary Pseudo-Simplicius disregards such aspects altogether. His method is deductive: He relies on some general thesis, partly taken from Iamblichus, from which to derive theses on sense-perception. The emphasis falls on Philoponus’ doctrine since his reliance on medical views leads to an interesting blend of Platonic and medical/empirical theories. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Hp3HmG57KFdbOQW

Mixis: le problème du mélange dans la philosophie grecque d'Aristote à Simplicius, 2016
By: Groisard, Jocelyn

Title	Mixis: le problème du mélange dans la philosophie grecque d'Aristote à Simplicius
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2016
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Belles lettres
Series	Anagôgê
Volume	9
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Groisard, Jocelyn
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Que se passe-t-il quand de l'eau et du vin se melangent ? Comment les quatre elements simples du monde physique se melent-ils les uns aux autres pour former les choses qui nous entourent ? La multitude des couleurs vient-elle aussi d'un melange de couleurs simples ? Deux corps melanges sont-ils simplement juxtaposes a une echelle microscopique ou bien peuvent-ils se compenetrer de sorte qu'il y aurait deux corps dans le meme lieu ? L'union de l'ame et du corps est-elle un melange ? Telles sont quelques-unes des questions etonnamment diverses que croise cette histoire du probleme du melange dans la philosophie grecque. Le recit propose ici suit trois lignes principales : la tradition peripateticienne, qui, d'Aristote a son commentateur Alexandre d'Aphrodise, elabore un modele de melange par mediation ou les ingredients de depart s'assimilent reciproquement pour s'unifier en un compose qualitativement intermediaire ; la doctrine stoicienne de la mixtion de part en part , ou les ingredients se compenetrent jusqu'a devenir parfaitement coextensifs ; le neoplatonisme et les transpositions qu'il opere a partir des modeles physiques precedents pour penser non seulement des relations entre corps mais aussi celle entre l'ame et le corps ou bien entre les realites incorporelles ou immaterielles de l'arriere-monde suprasensible. Fondee sur un vaste corpus de textes couvrant pres d'un millenaire d'histoire de la philosophie grecque, cette etude se veut aussi une proposition de methode : donner a lire les textes eux-memes et rester au plus pres de l'analyse des sources pour suivre parmi l'etonnant foisonnement des doctrines les developpements aussi divers qu'inattendus que la raison humaine, dans sa luxuriante imagination theorique, sait donner a la meme idee, fut-elle aussi courante et intuitive que celle de melange. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4jHtsWKi2OwB3cO

Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality, 2016
By: de Haas, Frans A. J., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	413-436
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	de Haas, Frans A. J.
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Zabarella’s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his ‘true’ interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella’s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella’s own theory of mixture still await further investigation.

To conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle’s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors’ commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella’s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle’s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus.
[conclusion p. 434-435]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs

Title	Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Pages	31-56
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)	Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H.
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC

Movers and Shakers, 2005
By: Lane Fox, Robin, Smith, Andrew (Ed.)

Title	Movers and Shakers
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown
Pages	19-50
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lane Fox, Robin
Editor(s)	Smith, Andrew
Translator(s)

In  late  antiquity,  as  in  all  other  periods,  philosophy had  the  power  to 
change  a person’s  choice  of life  and  scale  of values.  The  ‘shakers’  of my 
title are people who  passed on  this sort of impact to others.  Philosophy, 
including  Platonist  philosophy,  also  addressed  the  intellectual’s  relation 
to  contemporary  society.  If that  society  was  incurably  misguided,  then 
the philosopher might have no option except to leave it. In late antiquity, 
some took this option, and they are my ‘movers’. Both the ‘shakers’ and the 
‘movers’ need to be understood in terms of the philosophy they professed, 
but  a sufficient  understanding  of their  actions  does  not  require  a deep 
analysis of their deepest thoughts. They are within a historian’s grasp, and 
so I will discuss individuals, their texts and contexts without a close reading 
of particular arguments. [Introduction, p. 19]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8VcnG6x2IAjup1i

Much Ado About 'Nothing': μηδέν and τὸ μὴ ἐόν in Parmenides, 2002
By: Sanders, Katie R.

Title	Much Ado About 'Nothing': μηδέν and τὸ μὴ ἐόν in Parmenides
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Apeiron
Volume	35
Issue	2
Pages	87–104
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sanders, Katie R.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It is, to my knowledge, a universally accepted assumption among contemporary commentators that μηδέν, 'nothing,' and το μη ἔον, 'what-is-not,' function as synonyms in Parmenides' poem. In this paper, I focus primarily on the central role this supposed semantic equivalence plays in arguments supporting an emendation in line 12 of fragment B8. Despite this scholarly unanimity regarding the synonymy of these two Greek terms and the popularity of the emendation, I contend that we can make the best sense of Parmenides' argument in this and the surrounding lines precisely by retaining the manuscript reading and recognizing the difference in meaning between 'nothing' and 'what-is-not.' This claim, of course, also has broader implications for the interpretation of Parmenides' poem generally. [introduction p. 87-88]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TyAsS6APM6xvpAp

Mélanges Gilbert Dagron, 2002
By: Déroche, Vincent (Ed.)

Title	Mélanges Gilbert Dagron
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2002
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance
Series	Travaux et mémoires / Collège de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance
Volume	14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Déroche, Vincent
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/srVCI6CLDNJR4nL

Title	Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2011
Published in	Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence
Pages	317–342
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Blackwell, Constance
Editor(s)	Clucas, Stephen , Forshaw, Peter J. , Rees, Valery
Translator(s)

I have presented here some details of a very large and complex debate, in the process of which the history of Platonism itself was transformed. Some made every effort to write the Neo-Platonic tradition out of philosophy's history. For others, like Ralph Cudworth, who substantially transformed it, it was the most important part, while for Brucker it distorted the history of philosophy. [conclusion p. 342]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o

Neoplatonic Political Subjectivity? Prohairesis, to eph’ hēmīn, and Self-constitution in Simplicius’ Commentary on Epictetus’ Encheiridion , 2022
By: Tim Riggs

Title	Neoplatonic Political Subjectivity? Prohairesis, to eph’ hēmīn, and Self-constitution in Simplicius’ Commentary on Epictetus’ Encheiridion
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2022
Journal	International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	18
Issue	2
Pages	152-177
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tim Riggs
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

I argue that in his commentary on Epictetus’ Encheiridion, Simplicius derives a method by which his students can enter into the process of self-constitution, which is only achieved through completion of the study of Plato’s dialogues. The result of following the method is the attainment of a perspective consonant with the level of political virtue, which I call ‘political subjectivity’. This is a speculative interpretation of the effect the student would. experience in following the method, accomplished through analyses of Simplicius’ interpretation of Epictetus’ concept of to eph’ hēmīn and the related prohairesis. I complement this with an analysis of the metaphysical foundation Simplicius gives the method in light of Charles Taylor’s notion of ‘strong evaluation’. In this way, I show how Simplicius adapts these concepts to his Neoplatonic psychology and virtue theory to make the method serve as preparation for the development of virtue prior to study of Plato. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1aSuGa63BJmxeQ0

Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature, 2012
By: Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Wilberding, James (Ed.)

Title	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Wilberding, James
Translator(s)

Despite Platonism’s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity—or Neoplatonists—were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is ‘merely’ an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part—‘The general metaphysics of Nature’—directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part—’Platonic approaches to individual sciences’—showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J

Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life, 2015
By: Wilberding, James, Marmodoro, Anna (Ed.), Prince, Brian (Ed.)

Title	Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2015
Published in	Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity
Pages	171-185
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wilberding, James
Editor(s)	Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian
Translator(s)

What is surprising is the conception of vegetative generation and life that results for Neoplatonists. As I shall show here, they ultimately concluded that the vegetative souls of individual plants are not self-sufficient. That is to say, the dependence of individual plants on the earth, in terms of both their generation and their preservation, extends beyond mere nutritive needs into the psychological domain of their life activities. In order to see how they arrived at this surprising conclusion, it will be necessary to begin with a brief sketch of Neoplatonic embryological theory, as it can be found across a wide range of core Neoplatonic authors and texts. This theory may be encapsulated into four theses:

(i) First, all Neoplatonists are one-seed theorists: there is no female seed. In this, the Neoplatonists were in full agreement with Peripatetic embryology and in opposition to the two-seed theories advanced by the Hippocratics and Galen, though this opposition remains only implicit, as they never even acknowledge the possibility of a female seed.

(ii) Second, Neoplatonists universally understand the seed to be a collection of form-principles (logoi) corresponding to individual parts of the father (and by extension of the offspring). Since these form-principles are immaterial, they are wholly present in every part of the seed, allowing the seed to be completely homoiomerous.

(iii) Third, these seminal form-principles are in a state of potentiality.

(iv) Fourth, they must be led to a state of actuality by an external cause that possesses these same principles in actuality. This cause is generally identified with the nature of the mother, who is additionally responsible for supplying the matter in the form of menses.

It is these final two theses that establish the Neoplatonic theory as an exciting new development in ancient embryology. On Aristotle’s one-seed theory, by contrast, the male seed serves as the formal and efficient cause of embryological development, requiring only matter from the female. Aristotle establishes the self-sufficiency of the male seed as an efficient cause by attributing actual motion to it. Even on Galen’s two-seed theory, where one might have expected the female to be granted greater causal efficacy in the embryological process, the male seed remains the sole efficient cause, with the female seed more or less demoted to serving as nourishment for the male seed.

What is revolutionary, therefore, in the Neoplatonic account of embryology is its placing the female on equal footing with the male in terms of their causal contributions in embryology. This new conceptualization of the respective contributions of the male and female should be seen as resulting from the application of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework of procession and reversion to embryology. Within this framework, the creation of an offspring consists of two distinct causal moments. In the first moment, procession, an inchoate offspring is generated that is a likeness of its progenitor but in a state of potentiality. The procession from the One, for example, results in the generation of the Pre-Intellect, which is still only potentially the Intellect. The second moment, reversion, is what accounts for this potentiality being led to a state of activity: by reversion, the Pre-Intellect becomes the genuine Intellect.

When this framework is applied to embryology, the theses (iii) and (iv) above follow. The male’s emission of a seed is likened to procession, with the form-principles in the seed still being in a state of potentiality. This potentiality is led to actuality by the mother at conception and throughout the process of gestation. Thus, the male and the female are on a par insofar as each corresponds to one of the two moments of the One’s creative activity. [introduction p. 171-174]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ElblvTuFCEVCpgN

Neue Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (1995-2003). Teil II, 2004
By: Steel, Carlos, Helmig, Christoph

Title	Neue Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (1995-2003). Teil II
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2004
Journal	Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie
Volume	29
Pages	225-247
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos , Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In erster Linie ist es notwendig, das so rasant angewachsene Interesse für die neuplatonische Philosophie dahingehend zu nutzen, dass die Editionen und kommentierten Übersetzungen wichtiger Texte weitergeführt werden. Das ist eine intensive, mühevolle und oft undankbare Arbeit, weil so etwas im heutigen „Forschungsklima“ nicht immer in ausreichendem Maße gewürdigt wird. Und dennoch bleibt es eine der drängendsten Aufgaben, und das umso mehr, weil wir befürchten müssen, dass die Kenntnis der alten Sprachen immer weiter zurückgeht.

Wie im Mittelalter die antike Philosophie nur überleben und neuen Einfluss gewinnen konnte durch massive Übersetzungsaktivitäten (ins Arabische und Lateinische), so werden in diesem Jahrhundert – ob man es nun bedauert oder nicht – viele neuplatonische Autoren nur noch in Reihen wie „The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle“ oder in anderen Übersetzungen gelesen werden. Darum ist es wichtig, dass die Übersetzungen zuverlässig sind und auf guten Editionen fußen.

Es wäre daher wünschenswert, dass gerade auch in Deutschland vermehrt zentrale Texte aus dem späteren Neuplatonismus übersetzt und kommentiert würden. Aber neben dieser Editions- und Übersetzungsarbeit sollte das eigentliche Ziel der Forschung eine philosophische Annäherung sein an diese große Tradition der Geistesgeschichte mit ihren vielfachen kulturellen Verzweigungen im Mittelalter (von Syrien über den Irak und Andalusien bis nach Köln), in der Renaissance und in der Neuzeit.

Dabei müssen wir uns aber davor hüten, den Neuplatonismus allzu leicht mit Schwärmerei oder einer Art von Esoterik in Verbindung zu bringen. Er ist und bleibt vor allem eine Philosophie, auch wenn er eine Philosophie ist, die rational die Grenzen der Rationalität einsieht.

Gerade in der deutschsprachigen Forschung haben wir schöne Beispiele für ein fruchtbares Zusammengehen von philologischer akribeia und philosophischer Annäherung. Ein Paradigma einer solchen Forschung am Neuplatonismus bleiben für uns die zahlreichen philosophisch anregenden Arbeiten von Werner Beierwaltes. [p. 246-247]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/J1gdFPhAmlKlP6l

Nicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine, 2008
By: Fazzo, Silvia

Title	Nicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2008
Journal	Revue des Études Grecques
Volume	121
Issue	1
Pages	99-126
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Fazzo, Silvia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The paper discusses the attribution of the compendium De Philosophia Aristotelis to Nicolaus of Damascus the general historian (fl.: end 1st c. BC). By contrast, there are reasons to believe that the work was written by a Peripatetic Nicolaus between the 3rd and the 6th century, most likely from Syria in the 4th c. AD. Among the consequences: one piece of evidence for interest in a wide range of Aristotle's works already in the 1st century BC-lst century AD is removed; the supposedly earliest evidence for Metaphysics as the title of Aristotle's work is moved to a later date; the idea that Peripatetic activity more or less ceased with Alexander, Thémistius being the only exception, is weakened by another counter-example. On the contrary, a distinctively Peripatetic culture must have been still alive in Themistius' and Nicolas' time, when special tools were produced both for teaching activity and for the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to later eras. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jxgfqFdijkuOVZK

Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)

Title	Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2007
Published in	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Pages	243-256
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

Les qualités que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent communément de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clarté des exposés et la pertinence de l’exégèse, ce commentaire a joui d’une longue postérité chez les érudits et philosophes byzantins. En témoigne d’emblée l’abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits à l’époque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d’entre eux sont conservés aujourd’hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le même ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L’utilisation de ce commentaire à Byzance a été presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu’à Pléthon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l’Epitomé isagogique (Εἰσαγωγική ἐπιτομή) de Nicéphore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte à la Physique d’Aristote en représente le point culminant.

Avant d’aborder l’étude qui nous intéresse ici particulièrement, quelques brèves précisions sur la nature de l’ouvrage seront utiles. L’Epitomé isagogique – autrement dit Abrégé introductif – est un compendium scolaire divisé en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appelées communément Epitomé logique et Epitomé physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l’essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l’astronomie), la partie physique ayant été publiée dans sa forme finale vers l’an 1260.

L’Epitomé de Blemmyde n’appartient évidemment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorité mais plutôt sur des thèmes philosophiques, qui sont annoncés par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l’ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l’érudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les spéculations étendues déclenchées par ce qui est dit ou n’est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorité, la mention des auteurs antérieurs, les citations précises. On a ici affaire non pas à un commentateur, mais plutôt à un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et nécessaires (τὰ καρικώτερα καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότερα, comme il le dit lui-même dans son autobiographie).

Les matériaux à partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l’Epitomé physique sont mis en place sont empruntés surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius à la Physique et au traité Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au traité De la génération et de la corruption et celui d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux Météorologiques. C’est précisément le rapport de l’Epitomé physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique – la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres – qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous tâcherons d’aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire apparaître, d’une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde à Simplicius et évaluer, d’autre part – en considération du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fidèlement des passages entiers de son modèle – le rôle de l’Epitomé comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j

Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato’s Conception of Not-Being, 2023
By: Roberto Granieri

Title	Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato’s Conception of Not-Being
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2023
Journal	Méthexis
Volume	35
Issue	1
Pages	185-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Roberto Granieri
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In explicating a passage from Physics A 3, Simplicius reports a criticism by Alexander of Aphrodisias against Plato’s conception of not-being in the Sophist. Alexander deems this conception contradictory, because it posits that unqualified not-being is. Simplicius defends Plato and gives a diagnosis of what he regards as Alexander’s interpretative mistake in raising his objection. I unpack this debate and bring out ways in which it sheds light on important aspects of Plato’s project in the Sophist and of Simplicius’ own philosophical background, notably in Damascius’ De principiis. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kxUtLJkrkZD05av

Note sulla chiusura della Scuola neoplatonica di Atene, 2002
By: Napoli, Valerio

Title	Note sulla chiusura della Scuola neoplatonica di Atene
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2002
Journal	Schede Medievali
Volume	42
Pages	53-95
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Napoli, Valerio
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Secondo la lettura di Alain De Libera, l’“esilio” dei filosofi in Persia non segna la chiusura del conflitto tra l’ellenismo e il cristianesimo né la fine della filosofia («la filosofia è tutt'altro che morta a quest’epoca»), ma, al contrario, rappresenta l’evento che dà avvio a un movimento di trasferimento o di transfert della scienza – una traslazione degli studi o dei centri di studio – che durerà fino alla fine del Medioevo.

L’esilio in questione, con cui la filosofia emigra – o pensa di emigrare – dall’Impero bizantino all’Impero sassanide per poi ritornare nell’Impero bizantino (in una translatio da Atene in Persia e dalla Persia a Harràn), costituisce una delle varie translations studiorum che si verificano tra l’antichità e il Medioevo e segna il perdurare, nella città di Harràn, in territorio bizantino, della filosofia pagana.

In ogni caso, è possibile notare che, con i filosofi menzionati da Agazia (e forse con altri della stessa epoca non coinvolti nell’avventura persiana), ci troviamo di fronte all’ultima generazione di spicco dei filosofi pagani. Qualunque sia stata l’attività filosofica svolta dai neoplatonici dopo il loro ritorno dalla Persia, a Harràn o in qualche altra località, si può comunque constatare che Damascio (il quale probabilmente scrisse le sue opere prima del 529) e, se si vuole, qualche altro pensatore contemporaneo costituiscono gli ultimi filosofi pagani di rilievo.

«[...] De fait – dichiara con decisione Henri Dominique Saffrey – après l’époque de Justinien, il n’y a plus eu de philosophes païens. Simplicius et les quelques-uns de la génération qui le suit, furent les derniers». Il pensiero pagano continuerà a vivere – al di là della possibile attività della comunità neoplatonica harraniana – in Oriente e in Occidente, in una complessa e intricata trama di ricezioni, influssi, fruizioni, letture, trasformazioni e suggestioni, nell’ambito del pensiero successivo nelle sue articolazioni arabo-islamica, greco-bizantina, latino-occidentale e altre. [conclusion p. 94-95]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UFh3Gu1utmqf1sN

Nous and Two Kinds of Epistêmê in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, 2010
By: Zeev Perelmuter

Title	Nous and Two Kinds of Epistêmê in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	55
Issue	3
Pages	228-254
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zeev Perelmuter
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle in Physics I,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate “cognition according to the definition and through the elements,” and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is πιστήμη. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for πιστήμη and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to reconstruct Simplicius' reading of “Socrates' Dream,” its place in the Theaetetus ' larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IHkwn4udUD0QWHq

OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels), 2011
By: Gregoric, Pavel, Helmig, Christoph

Title	OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2011
Journal	Classical Quarterly
Volume	61
Issue	2
Pages	722-730
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gregoric, Pavel , Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The  upshot  of  this  article  is  that  the  treatment  of  the  phrase  ὁμόσε  χωρεῖν  in LSJ  can  be  supplemented  as  far  as  later  (Neoplatonic)  authors  are  concerned.  We  have  seen  that  the  translation  ‘to  come  to  issue’  for  the  metaphorical  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  ambiguous  and  needs  to  be  qualified  according  to  the  context.  While  the  expression  usually  betrays  an  adversative  connotation  –  to  counter  or  refute  an  argument  –  later  (Neoplatonic)  authors  also  used  it  in  a  more  neutral  sense  (‘to  come  to  grips  with  an  argument’).  More  to  the  point,  the  phrase  can  also  have  a  
concessive  connotation,  implying  a  concession  or  acceptance.  It  is  precisely  this  
latter  connotation  that  we  find  in  Simplicius’  Corollary  on  Place  601.26–8. [conclusion, p. 730]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8hDZ2Sqz5SgPL6n

On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius, 2014
By: Tuominen, Miira, Silva, José Filipe (Ed.)

Title	On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy
Pages	55-78
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tuominen, Miira
Editor(s)	Silva, José Filipe
Translator(s)

While the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle’s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle’s core assumptions. By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments. However, I argue that they still retained the assumption that there also is sensation of external objects but ascribed this to the sense organism rather than the sensitive soul. The point is rather clear in Pseudo-Simplicius and I also argue that it is likely that Philoponus maintained a similar view. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

On Aristotle's Categories 7-8, 2002
By: Simplicius

Title	On Aristotle's Categories 7-8
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Fleet, Barrie(Fleet, Barrie) ,

In "Categories" chapters 7 and 8 Aristotle considers his third and fourth categories - those of Relative and Quality. Critics of Aristotle had suggested for each of the non-substance categories that they could really be reduced to relatives, so it is important how the category of Relative is defined. Arisotle offers two definitons, and the second, stricter, one is often cited by his defenders in order to rule out objections. The second definition of relative involves the idea of something changing its relationship through a change undergone by its correlate, not by itself. There were disagreements as to whether this was genuine change, and Plotinus discussed whether relatives exist only in the mind, without being real. The terms used by Aristotle for such relationships was 'being disposed relatively to something', a term later borrowed by the Stoics for their fourth category, and perhaps originating in Plato's Academy. In his discussion of Quality, Aristotle reports a debate on whether justice admits of degrees, or whether only the possession of justice does so.
Simplicius reports the further development of this controversy in terms of whether justice admits a range or latitude (platos). This debate helped to inspire the medieval idea of latitude of forms, which goes back much further than is commonly recognised - at least to Plato and Aristotle. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hbMACJVeFK0x6wQ

On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	Aestimatio
Volume	12
Pages	56-82
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contem¬poraines. Un bilan critique," which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iph5X72ry3ZiZ9P

On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier, 2002
By: Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Wöhrle, Georg (Ed.)

Title	On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Stuttgart
Publisher	Franz Steiner Verlag
Series	Die Philosophie der Antike
Volume	14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Wöhrle, Georg
Translator(s)

The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6

One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today, 2010
By: Mohr, Richard D. (Ed.), Sattler, Barbara M. (Ed.)

Title	One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2010
Publication Place	Las Vegas - Zurich - Athens
Publisher	Parmenides Publishing
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Mohr, Richard D. , Sattler, Barbara M.
Translator(s)

This collection of original essays brings together philosophers, classicists, physicists, and architects to reveal the meaning and assess the impact of one of the most profound and influential works of Western letters - Plato's Timaeus, a work that comes as close as any to giving a comprehensive account of life, the universe, and everything, and does so in a startlingly narrow compass.

The Timaeus gives an account of the nature of god and creation, a theory of knowledge, a taxonomy of the soul and perception, and an account of objects that gods and soul might encounter... [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tmvgz6Nr6OBQMua

Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie, 2014
By: Lecerf, Adrien (Ed.), Saudelli, Lucia (Ed.), Seng, Helmut (Ed.)

Title	Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2014
Publication Place	Heidelberg
Publisher	Winter
Series	Bibliotheca Chaldaica
Volume	4
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Lecerf, Adrien , Saudelli, Lucia , Seng, Helmut
Translator(s)

Les Oracles chaldaïques posent nombre de problèmes à lʼhistorien de la pensée antique, tant sur le plan de la forme que sur celui du fond.

Texte datant du IIe siècle de notre ère, en vers principalement hexamétriques, dont nous ne possédons que des fragments et des témoignages, conservés par des auteurs postérieurs, en langue grecque et latine, les extraits à notre disposition recèlent une philosophie, dʼinspiration platonicienne, dont les thèmes principaux sont la triade divine formée de Père, Puissance et Intellect, les êtres intermédiaires, lʼâme et ses vicissitudes, les divers mondes.

Les questions que nous souhaitons traiter, en publiant ces travaux de recherche, sont le rattachement des Oracles au mouvement philosophique du « médioplatonisme » et les rapports entre théologie chaldaïque et théologie chrétienne. Nous étudions également la fortune et lʼinfortune des vers chaldaïques dans lʼAntiquité tardive et jusquʼau XVIIe siècle, en dégageant dʼautre part les perspectives dʼune nouvelle édition des Oracles.  [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/w8DvrIrkCyncwcE

Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 2009
By: Brad Inwood (Ed.)

Title	Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Volume	XXXVII
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Brad Inwood
Translator(s)

One of the leading series on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy presents outstanding new work in the field. The volumes feature original essays on a wide range of themes and problems in all periods of ancient philosophy, from its earliest beginnings to the threshold of the middle ages. It is anonymously peer-reviewed and appears twice a year.

The series was founded in 1983, and in 2016 published its 50th volume. The series format was chosen so that it might include essays of more substantial length than is customarily allowed in journals, as well as critical essays on books of distinctive importance. Past editors include Julia Annas, Christopher Taylor, David Sedley, Brad Inwood, and Victor Caston. The current editor, as of July 2022, is Rachana Kamtekar. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AZQTPKFglABgm9k

Title	Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Journal	Méthexis
Volume	29
Issue	1
Pages	188-198
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoine, Pieter d’
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Temo che anche il commentario di Ivan Licciardi non sia del tutto privo di queste imperfezioni. Inoltre, penso che alcune scelte formali – come quella di presentare il greco non a fronte della traduzione, ma piuttosto di seguito, e quella di non usare note nella parte del commentario – non abbiano contribuito a rendere più facile la navigazione attraverso le ricche informazioni che questo libro offre. Sotto questi aspetti, il libro ha l’impronta di un’opera prima, ma va detto che nella sua premessa l’autore stesso se ne mostra ben conscio (p. 19).

Esprimendo queste riserve, non ho l’intenzione di ridurre i meriti di questo studio né di sollevare dubbi sul contributo dato da questo libro alla nostra comprensione dei temi discussi. Il merito di questo libro è soprattutto quello di aver consentito una migliore comprensione del contesto storico e filosofico in cui e delle ragioni per cui Simplicio ci ha trasmesso Parmenide. Anche se questo libro può aiutare gli studiosi dei presocratici a contestualizzare la loro stessa interpretazione del filosofo di Elea, è soprattutto agli studi neoplatonici che l’autore contribuisce.

Infatti, il Parmenide di Simplicio è innanzitutto un Parmenide neoplatonico. Il senso storico e critico moderno fanno sì che noi non abbiamo più a nostra disposizione quella chiave ermeneutica neoplatonica che consiste nel riferire contraddizioni apparenti a diversi piani della realtà presenti solo implicitamente nel pensiero degli autori che studiamo. Il nostro obiettivo non è più quello di difendere la fondamentale unità del pensiero antico contro i cristiani né quello di mostrare la verità eternamente infallibile del platonismo.

Diversamente, pensiamo che sia più sensato rintracciare non solo i punti di accordo, ma anche le discordanze e le discontinuità nella storia del pensiero, in cui lo stesso Simplicio merita una posizione di rilievo. L’interpretazione simpliciana di Parmenide ha sì ‘salvato’ parecchie linee del Poema dall’oblio, ma il prezzo che l’Eleate ha pagato è stato quello di essere stato forzato, nelle parole di Licciardi, in una ‘griglia concettuale totalmente estranea alla logica del Poema’ (p. 43).

L’ironia di questa vicenda è che sia stato proprio l’intento di Simplicio di coltivare l’amicizia con tutti i filosofi pagani ad averlo spinto, in fin dei conti, a tradire tutti.
[conclusion p. 197-198]

Online Resources

Title	Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel Commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi in greco, traduzione e commentario
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	Symbolon
Volume	42
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Questo libro di Ivan Adriano Licciardi su Parmenide nel Commento alla Fisica di Simplicio colma una vistosa e per certi aspetti paradossale lacuna negli studi sul Neoplatonismo: sebbene Simplicio (VI sec. d.C.) rappresenti una delle fonti più importanti per la ricostruzione del poema di Parmenide (costituisce l'unico testimone dei celebri frr. 6 e 8), manca a tutt'oggi uno studio approfondito dedicato alla sua interpretazione della figura di Parmenide e in generale della filosofia eleatica.
Il lavoro di Licciardi, accurato dal punto di vista filologico, ben documentato sotto l'aspetto storiografico e dotato di acume filosofico, costituisce dunque un contributo prezioso, e per più di un aspetto seminale, su un nodo strategico della trasmissione e della ricezione del pensiero di Parmenide. L'ipotesi interpretativa che regge l'impianto storiografico di questo studio è che il Parmenide tràdito di Simplicio sia contemporaneamente un Parmenide tradìto. In effetti, Simplicio si impegna a promuovere un'immagine di Parmenide che risulti omogenea alla strategia concordista che attraversa una larga parte del tardo neoplatoni-smo pagano. La sostanziale convergenza tra Platone e Aristotele viene estesa da Simplicio anche a Parmenide, al quale egli attribuisce un'attitudine filosofica che anticipa il bi-mondismo formu-lato da Platone. Come già prima di lui aveva fatto Plutarco di Cheronea, anche Simplicio attri-buisce a Parmenide la formulazione dell'opposizione 'platonica' tra intelligibile e sensibile; sul-le orme di Plotino Simplicio interpreta il monismo ontologico di Parmenide, ossia la concezione dell'essere-uno, come una prefigurazione della seconda 'ipotesi' dell'esercizio del Parmenide platonico, dove vengono esaminate le conseguenze a partire dall'uno che è. Del resto la stessa critica che Aristotele muove a Parmenide e all'Eleatismo viene fortemente indebolita da Simplicio, che la piega alle esigenze della sua attitudine concordista. Il risultato di una simile operazione è, come spiega bene Licciardi, che il Parmenide di Simplicio non è né quello storico, né quello 'platonico', ossia quello messo in scena nel Parmenide, e neppure quello 'aristotelico', cioè quello contenuto nel I libro della Fisica. [Franco Ferrari]

Online Resources

Parmenide tradìto nel Commentario di Simplicio

Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment, 2010
By: McKirahan, Richard D.

Title	Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Ancient Philosophy
Volume	30
Issue	1
Pages	1-14
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	McKirahan, Richard D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Having established the attributes of τὸ ἐόν in a series of arguments that end at B8.33, in the following eight lines Parmenides goes on to explore implications of his earlier claim that ‘you cannot know what is not...nor can you declare it’ (B2.7-8) in the light of the results obtained so far in B8. He begins by stating (B8.34) that ‘what is to be thought of is the same as that on account of which the thought is’ and goes on to give an argument for that claim (B8.35-38a). He then (B8.38b-41) states as a consequence of the claim, that ‘it (that is, τὸ ἐόν) has been named all things that mortals, persuaded that they are real, have posited both to be generated and to perish, both to be and not, and to change place and alter bright color’. His treatment of these issues, which concern the relations among reality, thought, and language, is one of the most philosophically important parts of his work; it is arguably the very heart of his philosophy. It is also one of the most obscure. The philosophical difficulties are compounded by the facts that the Greek text is uncertain and its grammatical structure is hard to make out.

One of the principal issues in dispute is the relation between a line quoted in two ancient sources (Plato’s Theaetetus and a commentary on that work by an unknown author) and B8.38. Do those sources contain the true version of B8.38, an incorrect version of that line—a misquotation of the true version, or an altogether different line? B8.38 is a pivotal line in the passage B8.34-41; as indicated above, I believe that it contains the end of the first part of the passage and the beginning of the second, although it is commonly understood differently.

The first step towards understanding the passage is to establish the text of B8.38. Ideally such a text would have substantial support in the ancient sources, it would be a line of the dactylic hexameter verse in which Parmenides wrote, it would make grammatical sense, it would give a good philosophical sense in the place where it occurs, it would suit Parmenides’ manner of presenting his ideas and arguments, and it would make sense in relation to the rest of his philosophy.

In part I, I survey the evidence for B8.38 and argue that if the version reported by Plato and his commentator is accepted as a separate fragment, then one of the metrically acceptable versions of the line preserved in the manuscripts of Simplicius is more strongly supported than has previously been thought and, in fact, from this point of view it becomes the leading candidate. In part II, I argue that this version can be read in a way that is philologically unobjectionable, and I propose a way of reading it that fits well with its context, is characteristic of Parmenides’ philosophical style, and gives at least as good philosophical sense as previous construals do. I also defend my interpretation against recent claims by Kingsley, Vlastos, and Mourelatos.

Finally, in part III, I take up the question of Cornford’s fragment (as the line quoted by Plato and his commentator is known). I boost the alleged fragment’s claim to authenticity by proposing a new way to understand the text that makes the line metrically and philologically unobjectionable and presenting two ways of construing it that make philosophical sense and make claims that do not repeat what Parmenides says elsewhere but accord well with his views. [introduction p. 1-2]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SqC5oF6JPgbuN3v

Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators, 2014
By: Lautner, Peter, Remes, Pauliina (Ed.), Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (Ed.)

Title	Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism
Pages	323-338
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lautner, Peter
Editor(s)	Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla
Translator(s)

Moreover, an important part of the awareness involved in sense perception is that we are aware not only of the specific impact but also of the perceptual activity of our sensory power. The root of the problem is exposed in Aristotle’s De Anima. In 3.2, Aristotle insists that we do perceive that we perceive. He seems to take it for granted that our perceptual system is capable of grasping its own operations. At the beginning of De Anima 3.2, he presents the following aporia:

"Since we perceive that we see and hear, it must either be by sight that one perceives that one sees or by another [sense]. But in that case, there will be the same [sense] for sight and the color which is the subject for sight—so that either there will be two senses for the same thing or {the sense} itself will be the one for itself." (425b 12-16, trans. Hamlyn)

The distinction between perception and perception of perception—perceptual consciousness—is here taken for granted, and the fact that a subject perceives that he perceives is something that calls for explanation. In principle, the problem posed by Physics 7.2 is now resolved. On the account of the De Anima, in order for the subject to be aware of it, sense perception must be understood as a change that takes place in the perceiving subject. According to a general principle of change, formulated in Physics 3.3 (202a21-b5), the change produced by some cause is always in the thing that is changed.

Consequently, as a kind of qualitative change, sense perception takes place in the perceiving subject. Moreover, sense perception implies perceptual awareness because sense perception is a reception of sensible forms coming from without. Perceptual awareness comes about when the sense apprehends the sensible forms in itself and, on account of this, fulfills its function as sense. We perceive the change within ourselves. The two processes are one, differing only in account. For it is by receiving the form from the things perceived, which are outside, that we apprehend them, but it is by the sense having the form of the things perceived in itself that perceptual awareness comes about. To take the example of seeing, we see something in virtue of apprehending the perceptible’s form. By apprehending the form, the sense of sight sees, and at the same time, it comes to see itself seeing.

On this account, sense perception is intimately linked to a certain kind of awareness. In sense perception, we simultaneously apprehend both the thing perceived and the activity of the sense in relation to the thing perceived. Perceptual awareness is tied to the fact that in sense perception, we must be aware of the reception of external influence. Hence, the reflexive nature of sense perception is somehow included in the activity of grasping the primary objects of sense perception.

How shall we harmonize the two accounts? After all, it seems that in the De Anima, Alexander emphasizes the role of the common sense power, whereas in Quaestiones 3.7, he derives perceptual awareness from the general nature of sense perception. My suggestion is that the two accounts are complementary. The Quaestiones offer a general account of how perceptual awareness is possible. The reception of sensible forms requires awareness. Following Aristotle, Alexander assumes that this kind of awareness belongs to the perceptual faculty. It is not the rational faculty that such a task has been assigned to.

In the De Anima, Alexander specifies the thesis by pointing out that perceptual awareness comes about by virtue of the activity of the center of our perceptual system. It may remain unclear as to what arguments led him to dismiss the possibility that the particular senses might be able to grasp the activity of their own. There seem to be two points that could not have been accepted, for different reasons, and they also marked the limits within which Alexander's argument must have moved.

On the one hand, he accepted the Aristotelian thesis that perceptual awareness is the task of the perceptual system. On the other hand, he might have had doubts about the ability of the particular senses to grasp their own activities. Even if the act of seeing is somehow colored (De Anima 92.27-31), there must be a difference between the perceiver and the perceived. The difference is within the perceptual system and lies between the particular sense and the common sense power. [introduction p. 325-326]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wW0wlLHdi7RUUn2

Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations, 2002
By: Baltussen, Han, Foley, John Miles (Ed.), Worthington, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece
Pages	173-189
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian
Translator(s)

This  chapter  will  examine  a  small  aspect  of the  scholarly  method 
of  the  commentator  Simplicius.  It  seems  appropriate  to  start  with 
some justification  for  dealing  with  an  author  from  Late  Antiquity  on 
the  theme  of orality  and  literacy,  as  it  is  generally  assumed  that  these 
terms  refer  to  the  ‘early’  stages  of Greek  culture  when  w'riting  found 
its  way  into  the  intellectual  activities  of Greek  society.  As  I  shall  dis
cuss  the  methodology  of a  member  of the  Platonic  school  of around 
530  AD,  the  briefest  statement  to  qualify  the  terms  for  this  period 
is  to  say  that  author  belonged  to  a  highly  literate  and  tradition-con
scious  movement,  which  taught  and  studied  philosophy  building  on 
previous  attempts  at  exegesis. [p. 174]

Online Resources

Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition, 2010
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2010
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London
Series	BICS Supplement
Volume	103
Edition No.	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient
commentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the
Aristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as
a Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on
later philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and
natural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection
of Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the
rapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as
the lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the
interaction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his
milieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars
and tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his
theological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the
relation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related
concepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable
and wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late
ancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most
valuable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00

Philoponus, On Aristotle ‘Physics 5-8’ with Simplicius, On Aristotle on the Void, 2013
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Philoponus, On Aristotle ‘Physics 5-8’ with Simplicius, On Aristotle on the Void
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Urmson, J. O.(Urmson, James O.) , Lettinck, P.(Lettinck, P.) ,

Paul Lettinck has restored a lost text of Philoponus by translating it for the first time from Arabic (only limited fragments have survived in the original Greek). The text, recovered from annotations in an Arabic translation of Aristotle, is an abridging paraphrase of Philoponus' commentary on Physics Books 5-7, with two final comments on Book 8. The Simplicius text, which consists of his comments on Aristotle's treatment of the void in chapters 6-9 of Book 4 of the Physics, comes from Simplicius' huge commentary on Book 4. Simplicius' comments on Aristotle's treatment of place and time have been translated by J. O. Urmson in two earlier volumes of this series.[author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dftDwj5tHNlsKrR

Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius, 2016
By: Baltussen, Han, Kraus, Christina S. (Ed.), Stray, Christopher (Ed.)

Title	Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre
Pages	173-194
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher
Translator(s)

This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative “corpus” of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a “natural by-product” of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE).

Online Resources

Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics, 2018
By: Parsons, Bethany, Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Layne, Danielle, A. (Ed.)

Title	Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Pages	227-242
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Parsons, Bethany
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Layne, Danielle, A.
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RBkbZJgg5JiRP2K

Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2008
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is the first book-length study in English of the interpretative and philosophical approach of the commentaries of Simplicius of Cilicia (c. AD 530). Simplicius' work, marked by doctrinal complexity and scholarship, is unusually self-conscious, learned and rich in its sources, and he is therefore one of those rare authors who is of interest to ancient philosophers, historians and classicists alike. Here, Han Baltussen argues that our understanding of Simplicius' methodology will be greatly enhanced if we study how his scholarly approach impacts on his philosophical exegesis. His commentaries are placed in their intellectual context and several case studies shed light on his critical treatment of earlier philosophers and his often polemical use of previous commentaries. "Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius" not only clarifies the objectives, pre-suppositions and impact of Simplicius' work, but also illustrates how, as a competent philosopher explicating Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, he continues and develops a method that pursues philosophy by way of exegetical engagement with earlier thinkers and commentators. The investigation opens up connections with broader issues, such as the reception of Presocratic philosophy within the commentary tradition, the nature and purpose of his commentaries, and the demise of pagan philosophy.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6fusW1GpgUp9w7O

Philosophy in the Age of Justinian, 2005
By: Wildberg, Christian, Maas, Michael (Ed.)

Title	Philosophy in the Age of Justinian
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian
Pages	316-340
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s)	Maas, Michael
Translator(s)

In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names 
of nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques
tion,  it is  necessary  to begin with a short  prosopography.  A history of 
philosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow
ering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, 
(c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc
cur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they 
shaped  the views  and methods of their philosophical successors in  the 
period that concerns us. [p. 318] 
To illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate 
otherwise  obscure  texts  but  were  the  preferred  genre  of discourse  to 
establish,  negotiate,  and  criticize  substantive  philosophical  claims,  we 
now turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or 
less open fashion.  In an influential article,  Karl  Praechter once argued 
that one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions 
within the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23  In partic
ular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major 
schools,  the  Athenian and the Alexandrian branch,  lay in  their differ
ent exegetical  methods.  Whereas the Athenian  school  (represented by 
Syrianus,  Proclus,  Damascius,  and  Simplicius)  was  heavily influenced, 
broadly  speaking,  by  Iamblichuss  tendency  to  bring  out  in  any  text, 
as far  as  possible,  the  understanding it  offers  of the  intelligible  world, 
the Alexandrian  School  (represented by Hierocles in the  fifth  century, 
and by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the 
sixth)  tended toward  a  more  sober and less  metaphysical  technique  of 
interpretation.  Praechter connected these observations with two socio
cultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally 
been  a  center  of learning  in  the  exact  sciences  (hence  the  preference for  Aristotle)  and  possessed  a  large  Christian  intellectual  community 
attending  the  Alexandrian  philosophers’  lectures  and  classes  (which 
would  temper  the  propagation  of Platonism  as  an  antigospel).  Thus, 
as compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less 
of a sect  (hairesis)  and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z

Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1, 2004
By: Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Institute of Classical Studies
Series	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)
Volume	Supplement 83.1
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji’s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nqTHgI2QahbENt5

Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry, 2006
By: Karamanolis, George

Title	Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Clarendon Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lGHQiEMtSxBEKEl

Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander, 2005
By: Guldentops, Guy, Steel, Carlos (Ed.), Leinkauf, Thomas (Ed.)

Title	Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Pages	195-212
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Guldentops, Guy
Editor(s)	Steel, Carlos , Leinkauf, Thomas
Translator(s)

In  this paper,  I  shall try to shed some light on Simplicius’ use of the  Ti
maeus  in his commentary on De Caelo,  and particularly on the difference 
between his own interpretation and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [...] In  what  follows,  I’ll  try  to  detail  some  differences between  Alexander’s 
and  Simplicius'  uses  and  interpretations o f the  Timaeus-,  in  particular,  I’ll 
focus on their arguments concerning the generation of the world, the world 
soul,  and the immobility of the earth. Before looking at some selected pas
sages, however, it is necessary to outline Simplicius’ general attitude toward 
Alexander of Aphrodisias and to sketch their overall interpretations of  the 
theme of De Caelo. [Introduction, pp. 196 f.]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/650gVOAyvHZdk8u

Platon und die Physis, 2019
By: Koch, Dietmar (Ed.), Männlein-Robert, Irmgard (Ed.), Weidtmann, Niels (Ed.)

Title	Platon und die Physis
Type	Edited Book
Language	German
Date	2019
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann, Niels
Translator(s)

Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beiträge zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im übertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder Göttlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ansätze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und pädagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept in den Blick genommen. Die zeitgenössische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen Überlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung der Platonischen Dialoge ist für die genannten Fragestellungen höchst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung späterer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons 'Physis'-Konzept. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vmsLFJtLo9CPIY0

Platon und die Zeit, 2024
By: Klaus Corcilius (Ed.), Irmgard Männlein (Ed.)

Title	Platon und die Zeit
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2024
Publication Place	Tübingen
Publisher	Mohr Siebeck
Series	Tübinger Platon Tage
Volume	3
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Klaus Corcilius , Irmgard Männlein
Translator(s)

Der Band "Platon und die Zeit" umfasst Beiträge zu einem zentralen und großen Thema bei Platon: Vor allem im Dialog 'Timaios', aber auch in weiteren philosophischen Dialogen Platons geht es um die Frage der Natur und des Wesens von Zeit und darum, wie und ob sie entstanden ist. So werden in diesem Band ganz unterschiedliche philosophische und kosmologische Ansätze ebenso wie ontologische und ethische Themen zu Platons Zeit-Konzept in den Fokus genommen. Behandelt werden überdies viele Stufen der philosophischen Rezeption und der (kritischen) Auseinandersetzung mit Platons Vorstellungen über 'Zeit', die etwa über Philon von Alexandria, Plutarch, Numenios, Origenes, Plotin und Augustinus bis hin zu späteren Neuplatonikern wie Proklos in die Spätantike reichen. [official abstract]

Online Resources

Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 2018
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Layne, Danielle, A. (Ed.)

Title	Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2018
Publication Place	Gloucestershire
Publisher	Prometheus Trust
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Layne, Danielle, A.
Translator(s)

This anthology of 16 essays by scholars from around the world is published in association with the ISNS: it contains many of the papers presented in their 2016 annual conference. Contents:

The Significance of Initiation Rituals in Plato’s Meno – Michael Romero

Plato’s Timaean Psychology – John Finamore

The Creative Thinker: A New Reading of Numenius fr. 16.10-12 – Joshua Langseth

First Philosophy, Abstract Objects, and Divine Aseity: Aristotle and Plotinus – Robert M. Berchman

Plotinus on philia and its Empedoclean origin – Giannis Stamatellos

In What Sense Does the One Exist? Existence and Hypostasis in Plotinus – Michael Wiitala and Paul DiRado

A Double-Edged Sword: Porphyry on the Perils and Profits of Demonological Inquiry – Seamus O’Neill

Alienation and Divinization: Iamblichus’ Theurgic Vision – Gregory Shaw

Iamblichus’ method for creating Theurgic Sacrifice – Sam Webster

The Understanding of Time and Eternity in the polemic between Eunomius, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa – Tomasz Stępień

Tension in the soul: A Stoic/Platonic concept in Plutarch, Proclus, and Simplicius – Marilynn Lawrence

Peritrope in Damascius as the Apparatus of Speculative Ontology – Tyler Tritten

Mysticism, Apocalypticism, and Platonism – Ilaria Ramelli

Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics – Bethany Parsons

From Embryo to Saint: a Thomist Account of Being Human – Melissa Rovig Vanden Bout

From the Neoplatonizing Christian Gnosticism of Philip K. Dick to the Neoplatonizing Hermetic Gnosticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson – Jay Bregman
[official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aEX0vcsHkkXIXix

Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 2019
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Nejeschleba, Tomáš (Ed.)

Title	Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2019
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Prometheus Trust
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Nejeschleba, Tomáš
Translator(s)

This anthology of 23 essays by scholars from around the world is published in association with the ISNS: it contains many of the papers presented in their 2017 annual conference. Contents:

Why the Intelligibles are not Outside the Intellect Lloyd Gerson

The Causality of the First Principle and the theory of Two Activities in Plotinus Enn. V.4 [7] 13 Andrei Timotin

“Our concern, though, is not to be out of sin, but to be god:” Assimilation to god according to Plotinus  Thomas Vidart

Eros as Soul’s ‘Eye’ in Plotinus: What does it see and not see?  Lela Alexidze

Eternity and Time in Porphyry, Sentence 44 Lenka Karfíková

Gender construction and social connections in Porphyry’s Ad Marcellam  Mathilde Cambron-Goulet

What kind of souls did Proclus discover?  Svetlana Messiats

Is self-knowledge one or multiple? Consciousness in ‘Simplicius’, Commentary on On the Soul Chiara Militello

Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 Carolina Sánchez

Neoplatonic Asclepius  Eugene Afonasin

Porphyry and the Motif of Christianity as παράνομος Ilaria Ramelli

The Reception of Xenophanes’ Philosophical Theology in Plato and the Christian Platonists Monika Recinová

Cyril of Alexandria’s Theory of the Incarnate Union Re-examined Sergey Trostyanskiy

The Erotic Magus: Ficino’s De amore as a Guide to Plato’s Symposium  Angela Hobbs

Francesco Patrizi and the Oracles of Zoroaster: The Use of Chaldean Oracles in Nova de universis philosophia Vojtěch Hladky

Ficino in the light of alchemy. Heinrich Khunrathʼs use of Ficinian metaphysics of light Martin Žemla

Johannes Kepler and His Neoplatonic Sources  Jiří Michalík

Georgius Raguseius against Astrology Luka Boršić and Ivana Skuhala Karasman

The Platonic Framework of Valeriano Magni’s Philosophy Tomáš Nejeschleba

Comenius’ Pansophia in the Context of Renaissance Neo-Platonism Jan Čížek

The Spirit of Nature and the Spirit of God Jacques Joseph

Lewis Campbell’s Studies on Plato and their Philosophical Significance Thomas Mróz

Psychological Effects of Henôsis  Bruce J. MacLennan
[official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hkRNJ0N4ReN2FOY

Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, 2005
By: O'Meara, Dominic J.

Title	Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Oxford
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	O'Meara, Dominic J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Conventional wisdom suggests that the Platonist philosophers of Late Antiquity — from Plotinus in the 3rd century to the 6th-century schools in Athens and Alexandria — neglected the political dimension of their Platonic heritage in their concentration on an otherworldly life. This book presents a reappraisal of these thinkers, arguing that their otherworldliness involved, rather than excluded, political ideas. A reconstruction of the political philosophy of these thinkers is proposed for the first time, including discussion of these Platonists’ conceptions of the function, structure, and contents of political science (including questions concerning political reform, law, justice, penology, religion, and political action), its relation to political virtue and to the divinization of soul and state. This book also traces the influence of these ideas on selected Christian and Islamic writers: Eusebius, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and al-Farabi. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/T78u11ZeLDWAoqn

Title	Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2005
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1
Volume	29
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Leinkauf, Thomas , Steel, Carlos
Translator(s)

The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK

Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum, 2022
By: Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Macé, Arnaud (Ed.), Renaut, Olivier (Ed.)

Title	Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier
Translator(s)

The Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue’s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions.

A good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter’s paper. Plato’s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides’ ‘master-slave’ example, which Carpenter explains as follows: ‘his being a master does depend on someone else’s being a slave – and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave’ (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter’s argument.

Other contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e–157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various ‘thirds’ in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. Béatrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald’s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties.

As for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Brémond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called ‘dialectics’. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson’s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus’ interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle’s question ‘what is ousia?’.

The broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford’s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen’s Plato’s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald’s Plato’s Parmenides (1991), Sayre’s Parmenides’ Lesson (1996), Scolnicov’s Plato’s Parmenides (2003), Rickless’ Plato’s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill’s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. ‘Plato’ Parmenides’ on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63). [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5tS2Jub3NyDq8Oq

Plotin und Simplikios über die Kategorie des Wo, 2009
By: Strobel, Benedikt

Title	Plotin und Simplikios über die Kategorie des Wo
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2009
Journal	Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
Volume	51
Pages	7-33
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Dabei hat sich unter anderem gezeigt:
(i) Weder diese Interpretationen noch die auf ihnen beruhenden Argumente überzeugen völlig, und Simplikios' Verteidigung der aristotelischen Annahme der Kategorie des Wo ist weitgehend erfolgreich, weist jedoch mit der These, dass Lokative nicht-reziproke Relationen ausdrücken, eine Schwachstelle auf.
(ii) Plotins drittes, auf der Interpretation von Lokativen als Ausdrücke von Relationen beruhendes Argument überzeugt zwar letztlich nicht, weist jedoch auf ein ernsthaftes Problem für Aristoteles hin.
(iii) Die in der antiken Philosophie weitverbreitete Auffassung, an einem Ort zu sein bedeute, von einem Körper umfasst zu werden, gründet in einem bestimmten Verständnis von Lokativen der Form ἐν τινι (z. B. ἐν Λύκειον und ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ). Dies bestätigt die zu Beginn aufgestellte These, dass die semantische Analyse von Lokativen Konsequenzen hat für die Wahl der Antwort darauf, was es heißt, an einem Ort zu sein, und was es heißt, der Ort von etwas zu sein.
[introduction p. 30-31]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aD2ORfI4GVXZhsH

Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios, 2019
By: Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna, Xenophontos, Sophia (Ed.), Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini (Ed.)

Title	Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch
Pages	136-153
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna
Editor(s)	Xenophontos, Sophia , Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini
Translator(s)

The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch’s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise "On the Unity of the Academy" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction / Conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XM6bPhXl3bvnvIT

Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication, 2007
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo

Title	Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2007
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	18
Pages	123-140
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Porphyry’s interpretation of Aristotle’s theories of genus and substantial predication is based on two related assumptions:

That a clear separation exists between logic and metaphysics (= doctrine of transcendent realities).
That there is a close relation between logic and physics.

Since Porphyry’s physics is part of his ontology, logic and ontology (i.e., the logic and the ontology of the physical world) stand in close relation with each other. Porphyry only makes very partial references to metaphysics in his logical works. What I have argued is that Porphyry’s conception of genus in the Isagoge reflects the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings, since Porphyry presents his genus as an aph’ henos hierarchical relation. This, on the other hand, does not imply that Porphyry’s treatment of genus in the Isagoge refers to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry carefully introduces a doctrine in the Isagoge, the complete significance of which emerges in a different context: the ‘Porphyrean tree’ is thus a mere analogon of the Platonic hierarchy of beings.

The presence of physical doctrines is far more essential to Porphyry’s views of universals and predication. Physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms provide real correlates for Porphyry’s universal predicates: Aristotle’s substantial predication ‘mirrors’ the relation between a particular and its immanent form. Physical forms are not outside the scope of logic; rather, they provide the ‘real’ foundation for Porphyry’s views on predication. Such a foundation is presented in an introductory way in Porphyry’s logical writings and is only made explicit in his more ‘systematic’ works.

Iamblichus’ attitude is different in that his Platonizing of Aristotle’s logic is more direct and pervasive. Consequently, Iamblichus offers a Platonizing reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and to the metaphysical relation of participation. Iamblichus is well aware that an ante rem form cannot be a universal synonymous predicate of its particular instantiations, and he conceives of substantial predication as a paronymous relation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals.
[conclusion p. 17-18]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sra714DdTLHJIcS

Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism, 2018
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo

Title	Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2018
Journal	Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval
Volume	43
Pages	13-39
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates  about  genera  and  the  hierarchy  of  being  in  early  Neoplatonism  from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and
Iamblichus’  lost  commentaries on  Aristotle’s  Categories preserved  in  Simplicius.  In  his  account  of  genus,  Porphyry  draws  on Aristotle  and  apparently
claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/duFoYG09YhVIWUx

Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle, 2004
By: Karamanolis, George, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	97-120
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.

In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.

In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.

If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB

Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian, 2006
By: McGinnis, Jon

Title	Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2006
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	51
Issue	2
Pages	140-161
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	McGinnis, Jon
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle's account of place in terms of an innermost limit of a containing body was to generate serious discussion and controversy among Aristotle's later commentators, especially when it was applied to the cosmos as a whole. The problem was that since there is nothing outside of the cosmos that could contain it, the cosmos apparently could not have a place according to Aristotle's definition; however, if the cosmos does not have a place, then it is not clear that it could move, but it was thought to move, namely, in its daily revolution, which was viewed as a kind of natural locomotion and so required the cosmos to have a place. The study briefly outlines Aristotle's account of place and then considers its fate, particularly with respect to the cosmos and its motion, at the hands of later commentators. To this end, it begins with Theophrastus' puzzles concerning Aristotle's account of place, and how later Greek commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and others, attempted to address these problems in what can only be described as ad hoc ways. It then considers Philoponus' exploitation of these problems as a means to replace Aristotle's account of place with his own account of place understood in terms of extension. The study concludes with the Arabic Neoplatonizing Aristotelian Avicenna and his novel intro- duction of a new category of motion, namely, motion in the category of position. Briefly, Avicenna denies that the cosmos has a place, and so claims that it moves not with respect to place, but with respect to position. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EODvwNwP7DcvnBH

Pour une histoire de l’interprétation de Diogène, 2008
By: Laks, André

Title	Pour une histoire de l’interprétation de Diogène
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2008
Published in
Pages	21-36
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as "the last of the physicists," there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that "intellection" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uMTvuWxbtSS0NTk

Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico, 2016
By: Vitale, Angelo Maria (Ed.), Boriello, Maria (Ed.)

Title	Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico
Type	Edited Book
Language	Italian
Date	2016
Publication Place	Rom
Publisher	Città Nuova
Series	Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Vitale, Angelo Maria , Boriello, Maria
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB

Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul, 2010
By: de Haas, F. A. J., Gerson, Lloyd P. (Ed.)

Title	Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2010
Published in	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II
Pages	756–764
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	de Haas, F. A. J.
Editor(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Translator(s)

The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work "Solutiones ad Chosroem," translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the "Solutiones" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2VbXQkN5q9f6HeT

Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus, 2005
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume	58
Issue	4
Pages	510-530
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It  has been argued that Priscian of  Lydia (around 530), to  whom the  manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- 
mentary on the  De  anima,  which is  transmitted under the name of  Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics  is the text which the commentator mentions as  his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase.  As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On  principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima  commentary and a terminus ante  quern for the Metaphrase.  It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BTWKXjso1hvwiLb

Priscianus of Ludia, 2008
By: Baltussen, Han, Keyser, Paul T. (Ed.), Irby-Massie, Georgia L. (Ed.)

Title	Priscianus of Ludia
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs
Pages	695-696
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L.
Translator(s)

Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian’s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle’s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4–5).

Together with Themistius’ summary version of Aristotle’s On the Soul, Priscian’s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus’ psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, but this is still disputed.

Priscian’s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex—only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering—without originality—topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq

Priscien de Lydie, 2012
By: Perkams, Matthias, Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Priscien de Lydie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2012
Published in	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus
Pages	1514-1521
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Au total, l’autocitation du commentateur du De anima à sa propre Épitomé de Théophraste peut facilement être mise en rapport, grâce à des arguments philologiques solides, avec la Métaphrase conservée de Priscien, ce qui est également confirmé par l’utilisation de cet ouvrage en d’autres passages du commentaire.

Les preuves avancées par Steel et Boissier en faveur de cette thèse n’ont jamais été contredites de façon concluante, tandis que les objections faites à leur position peuvent en revanche recevoir une réponse. Finalement, on ne peut opposer à l’attribution du commentaire à Priscien que l’hypothèse fragile d’une Épitomé perdue de Théophraste ; au vu des particularités doctrinales et linguistiques communes aux deux textes conservés, cette hypothèse est en elle-même problématique.

Dans la mesure où il n’existe aucune preuve positive de l’existence d’un auteur distinct de Priscien et de Simplicius, il est recommandé, dès lors qu’avec la majorité des chercheurs on retire la paternité du commentaire à Simplicius, de considérer Priscien comme son auteur.

L’attribution à Priscien du Commentaire sur le De anima, qui est historiquement parfaitement plausible du fait de l’appartenance de ce philosophe au cercle de Damascius, est en tout cas, grâce à ses très solides bases philologiques, beaucoup mieux fondée que celle de nombreux textes antiques (par exemple l’attribution à Porphyre de Ad Gaurum ou du Commentaire anonyme de Turin sur le Parménide).

L’auteur de la présente notice est, pour sa part, persuadé de la justesse de cette attribution.
[conclusion p. 1521]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/e7qG8dZmAxFJDkM

Title	Priskian von Lydien (›Simplikios‹): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgewählt, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Matthias Perkams
Type	Book Section
Language	German
Date	2018
Published in	Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist
Pages	547-675
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius , Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)	Perkams, Matthias , Busche, Hubertus
Translator(s)	Perkams, Matthias(Perkams, Matthias) ,

Der De-anima-Kommentar, der hier dem Lyder Priskian zugeschrieben wird, ist eine der philosophisch anspruchsvollsten und elaboriertesten Darstellungen des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes. Originell und von systematischem Interesse sind besonders zwei Lehren:

Eine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, nämlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und Überleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen.

Die zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles’ Lehre vom aktiven Geist.

Diese äußerst knappe Charakterisierung der Stärken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift lässt seine Schwächen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung.

Priskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, „die Übereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben“; anders gesagt, erklärt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst für die Wahrheit hält. Das wichtigste Kriterium für diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich.

Konsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen häufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten könnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erklärt.

Trotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenmächtig sind, darf man nicht übersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalität im neuplatonischen Kontext ausmachen, tief von aristotelischer Terminologie durchdrungen und von dem Versuch geleitet sind, die Gedanken des Stagiriten vor dem Hintergrund der Fragen seiner eigenen Zeit nachzudenken.

Insofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel für einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, für den Aristoteles nicht nur „Platons bester Ausleger“ ist, sondern auch eine „weitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail“ liefert, „was dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erklärte“.

Auf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was für ihn Anlass zu einer ausführlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548]

Online Resources

Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter ("De mal. subs." 30-7), 2001
By: Opsomer, Jan

Title	Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter ("De mal. subs." 30-7)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	46
Issue	2
Pages	154-188
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In De malorum subsistentia chapters 30–37, Proclus criticizes the view that evil is to be identified with matter. His main target is Plotinus' account in Enn. 1.8 [51]. Proclus denies that matter is the cause of evil in the soul, and that it is evil or a principle of evil. According to Proclus, matter is good because it is produced by the One.

Plotinus' doctrine of matter as evil is the result of a different conception of emanation, according to which matter does not revert to its principle. Proclus claims that positing a principle of evil either amounts to a coarse dualism or makes the Good ultimately responsible for evil. Plotinus does not seem to escape the latter consequence if he is to remain committed to the Neoplatonic conception of causation.

Plotinus equated matter with privation and said it is a kind of non-being that is the contrary of substance, thus violating fundamental Aristotelian principles. Proclus reinstates Aristotelian orthodoxy, as does Simplicius in his Commentary on the Categories. It is possible that Iamblichus was the source of both Proclus and Simplicius, and that he was the originator of the parhypostasis theory and the inventor of the anti-Plotinian arguments. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Hey5Ym2eaERyB7G

Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise, 2005
By: Steel, Carlos, Leinkauf, Thomas (Ed.), Steel, Carlos (Ed.)

Title	Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2005
Published in	Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Pages	163-193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Leinkauf, Thomas , Steel, Carlos
Translator(s)

In this question and in many others, Philoponus believes Plato and Aristotle are radically opposed. Proclus does not dissimulate their disagreement, but, to Philoponus' anger, he does not take distance from Aristotle's interpretation of the Timaeus in the discussion about the eternity of the world. Instead of sincerely accepting with Plato that the world is generated and temporal, he defects to the Aristotelian view and thus comes in contradiction with his earlier work, as Philoponus demonstrates.

Simplicius also read the early treatise of Proclus, and he quotes large extracts from it in his commentary on the De Caelo. Simplicius, who is a great advocate of the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, is often embarrassed with Proclus’ polemics. Whenever Proclus quotes a text from Aristotle to convince the philosopher that he too is “forced” to admit the truth of the Platonic principles, Simplicius makes of it an argument to demonstrate that Aristotle is fundamentally in agreement with Plato.

How different their ultimate goals may have been in this polemic, both ideological opponents, Philoponus and Simplicius, offer us valuable information on a lost work of Proclus, in which he attacked Aristotle with youthful zeal in defense of the Timaeus. The treatise witnesses both his admiration for the Timaeus and his irritation at Aristotle’s unfair treatment. [conclusion p. 193]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kMYAmCjyTBGx2oh

Proclus: On the Existence of Evils, 2003
By: Opsomer, Jan, Steel, Carlos,

Title	Proclus: On the Existence of Evils
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2003
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury Academic
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan , Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Opsomer, Jan() , Steel, Carlos()

Proclus’ On the Existence of Evils is not a commentary, but helps to compensate for the dearth of Neoplatonist ethical commentaries. The central question addressed in the work is: how can there be evil in a providential world? Neoplatonists agree that it cannot be caused by higher and worthier beings. Plotinus had said that evil is matter, which, unlike Aristotle, he collapsed into mere privation or lack, thus reducing its reality. He also protected higher causes from responsibility by saying that evil may result from a combination of goods. Proclus objects: evil is real, and not a privation. Rather, it is a parasite feeding off good. Parasites have no proper cause, and higher beings are thus vindicated as being the causes only of the good off which evil feeds. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jf422McdNmgpCnP

Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.), 2014
By: Van Dusen, David

Title	Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	The Classical Review
Volume	64
Issue	2
Pages	436-437
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Van Dusen, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Despite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, “Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima”, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: “As no other scholar apparently shares Hadot’s view, there is no need for further polemics” (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius’ circles, that it represents “an original and personal engagement with Aristotle’s text” (p. 4), and that the commentator “uses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text” (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: “Modern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts ‘to set right’ a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures” (p. 7).

The manuscript basis of S.’s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck’s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: “Hayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina” (p. 149). A concise list of S.’s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume.

S.’s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6–13. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (“That also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...”, p. 101). The volume’s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius’ Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists’ appropriation and transmission of Aristotle.

Ps.-Simplicius’ text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages—not the last paragraphs of Physics 4—that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of “time” to the “soul.” (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he—like contemporary philosophers—turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time—and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity—would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3.

There is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius’ commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body—sexuality, and so on—in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that “the heart” is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas “if the object is pleasant, some other part” is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius’ gloss: “The heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (γεννητικὰ μόρια) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (ἀφροδισιαστικῶν ἡδονῶν)” (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle’s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: “The intellect is not wholly master (οὐ τὸ ὅλον κύριος) of the movement of the living being” (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine’s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus’ refusal of a disciple who was “pursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (τὰς ὑπογαστρίους ἡδονάς),” as Damascius reports?

The early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not “the Commentator on Aristotle’s De Anima III.” Ps.-Simplicius’ reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access—in conscientious English and in full—to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a “Platonic succession” in Athens. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW

Pseudopythagorica Dorica. I trattati di argomento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attribuiti ad Archita e a Brotino, 2017
By: Ulacco, Angela,

Title	Pseudopythagorica Dorica. I trattati di argomento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attribuiti ad Archita e a Brotino
Type	Monograph
Language	Italian
Date	2017
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Philosophie der Antike
Volume	41
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ulacco, Angela
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Ulacco, Angela()

Quelques exemples de scholies dans la tradition arabe des "Éléments" d'Euclide, 2003
By: Djebbar, Ahmed

Title	Quelques exemples de scholies dans la tradition arabe des "Éléments" d'Euclide
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2003
Journal	Revue d'histoire des sciences
Volume	56
Issue	2
Pages	293-321
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Djebbar, Ahmed
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

After describing two important sources of scholia, the manuscripts Teherán Malik 3586 and Leiden Or. 399/1, this article analyzes the different kinds of scholia found in these texts as well as in other mathematical writings of the Arab tradition of Euclid's Elements. The second part of the article provides a modern edition and French translation of some of these previously unpublished scholia. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Gv7BthgX2p0VabW

Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics, 2016
By: Coope, Ursula

Title	Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Volume	50
Pages	237-288
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Coope, Ursula
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper, we have seen how ps.-Simplicius draws upon the Neoplatonic notion of self-reversion to explain the nature of rational assent. I have argued that this account of assent provides a basis for explaining a fundamental difference between assenting and having impressions: the fact that we can assent for a reason but cannot (in the same sense) have an impression for a reason.

Ps.-Simplicius' account thus suggests an interesting new view of the nature of assent, a view that combines elements of Aristotelian, Stoic, and Neoplatonist thought. From the Stoics, he inherits the view that believing involves assenting. He draws upon the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain the essentially self-reflexive nature of assent. This enables him to defend Aristotle's claim that we cannot believe at will.

On this account, though we do not believe at will, we nevertheless have a kind of rational control over our beliefs: beliefs, by their very nature, are such as to be revised or maintained for reasons.

This account thus provides an answer to the question we raised for the Stoics: what is it about the nature of assent that explains why you are responsible for assenting in a way in which you are not responsible for having impressions?

You are responsible for assenting just because you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, and you can assent for reasons just because of the essentially self-reflexive nature of the act of assent.
[conclusion p. 286]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EAq0q2QllqJrF4y

Reading Plato in antiquity, 2006
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)

Title	Reading Plato in antiquity
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury Academic
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)

This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PFetB36hpbaF0VD

Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World, 2022
By: Lammer, Andreas (Ed.), Jas, Mareike (Ed.)

Title	Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia Antiqua
Volume	160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike
Translator(s)

Ever since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle’s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels’ work emphasized Theophrastus’ role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels’ two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought.

In this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle’s habit of examining such “received opinions” and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480–ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments.

By defining “received opinions” in the sense of “accepted” as well as “transmitted,” we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, “received opinions” relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with “historical” depth.

This three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels’ label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term “endoxography” in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels’ notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope.

In my study of Theophrastus’ work, I came up with the phrase “critical endoxography” a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus’ De sensibus as a way of specifying how these “well-known views” (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle’s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators.

Diels’ modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc

Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius, 2018
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	101-125
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary
on Aristotle’s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the κόσμος. Plato’s and Aristotle’s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities.
From our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding
of Simplicius’ way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius’ interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vZVYLur1bCGwnlh

Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus, 2016
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo, Rashed, Marwan, Sedley, David N., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	231-262
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N.
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work.

But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium.

The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.

The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14.

Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.

The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.

At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.

The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.

Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.
[introduction p. 231-233]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU

Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote, 2020
By: Baghdassarian, Fabienne (Ed.), Papachristou, Ioannis (Ed.), Toulouse, Stéphane (Ed.)

Title	Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2020
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia
Series	International Aristotle Studies
Volume	9
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Baghdassarian, Fabienne , Papachristou, Ioannis , Toulouse, Stéphane
Translator(s)

On the question of the divine, as on others, the Neoplatonic tradition has gradually made the reading of Aristotle a philosophical preriquisite. The contributions gathered in this volume aim at understanding how the Neoplatonic readers of Aristotle’s theology interpreted, commented on and criticized these doctrines in the light of their philosophical orientations, but also how Aristotle’s philosophy was able to influence, in return, their own conceptions and nourish the Neoplatonic approach to the divine. In short, it is a question of specifying both the different hermeunetic uses to which the Aristotelian philosophy of the divine has lent itself and the conceptual effect of this reappropriation. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NRy52L806zUPIxF

Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius, 2004
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2004
Published in	Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien
Pages	183-211
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)

Nous avons vu, à l’aide de plusieurs exemples, la manière dont le néoplatonicien Simplicius avait commenté un texte stoïcien. Nous avons constaté que Simplicius ne peut s’empêcher de réintroduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure où ses auditeurs ou lecteurs débutants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines néoplatoniciennes très complexes, qui n’ont rien à voir avec le texte du Manuel.

Les conclusions que l’on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la méthode exégétique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur Épictète, mais également pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caractérise la méthode exégétique de Simplicius commentant les traités d’Aristote, c’est la simplicité et l’objectivité. Il en conclut que, puisque l’auteur du commentaire du De anima d’Aristote attribué à Simplicius donne libre cours à son interprétation néoplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut être l’auteur de ce commentaire.

Il est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les œuvres de logique, le néoplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d’occasions d’introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va déjà autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s’agit du De anima, traité qui se plaçait, dans le cursus néoplatonicien, immédiatement avant la Métaphysique d’Aristote, et qui abordait des problèmes métaphysiques, la situation était toute différente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines néoplatoniciennes différaient largement de celles d’Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver à chaque pas l’harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote revenait à un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente différence de méthode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l’âme que professaient Aristote et les néoplatoniciens.

Plus généralement, quand on compare la position d’un stoïcien comme Épictète concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d’un néoplatonicien, en l’occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d’autonomie à l’égard du divin chez le philosophe néoplatonicien. Le stoïcien, en s’appuyant exclusivement sur la cohérence de son système et sur la force de sa raison, qu’il croit apte à diriger une vie vertueuse s’il est décidé à la suivre, se considère maître autonome de sa relation à Dieu. La question du salut de son âme après sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui.

Il en va autrement du philosophe néoplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son âme, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement systématisée et abstraite et d’une vie vertueuse, de l’aide des dieux, en partie obtenue grâce à des rites qu’il croit transmis par des « révélations ». Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses païennes, ressemble finalement à celle du christianisme recourant à des rites et des sacrements. À vrai dire, lorsqu'il s’agit du philosophe néoplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la théurgie correspondant à son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, à une union mystique avec l’Un ou l’Ineffable.

Mais tandis que Plotin arrivait à cette union par des moyens autonomes, les néoplatoniciens à partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d’y arriver tout à fait par eux-mêmes ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs âmes dans leur patrie sans l’aide d’un certain rituel. Il persiste néanmoins de grandes différences entre la « religion » néoplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d’autres religions qui ont la prétention de posséder seules la vérité. La plus importante de ces différences, à mes yeux, consiste en la tolérance et l’ouverture d’esprit vis-à-vis des religions étrangères.

Nous avons vu comment les néoplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des différents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences étaient des manifestations d’une même divinité, appropriées à la diversité des régions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux différentes religions localement implantées une sorte d’égalité de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu’on arrivait en qualité d’étranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux différent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et même s’y conformer au moins extérieurement.

Cet esprit d’ouverture et de tolérance religieuse s’est largement perdu avec la fin de l’Antiquité gréco-romaine et nous fait tellement défaut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi Épictète, auraient certainement approuvé les mots du préfet païen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la décision de l’empereur chrétien de faire enlever de la salle du Sénat romain l’autel de la Victoire :

    « Nous contemplons les mêmes astres, le ciel nous est commun, le même monde nous enveloppe. Qu’importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la vérité ? À un si grand mystère on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. » [conclusion p. 208-211]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi

Title	Remarque complémentaire à mon article “Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathémathiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen?”
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	1
Pages	263-269
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Concerning the book by R. Arnzen Abū l-‘Abbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?) Simplicius’  Kommentar  zu  den  Definitionen,  Postulaten  und  Axiomen  in  Euclids Elementa  I,  the  present  paper  off  ers  a  survey  of  the  way  the  late  Neoplatonists  used to conceive and compose their commentaries. Far from trying to be original, each commentary is largely based on the works of predecessors. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MJR57V7OQzq7spB

Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2009
By: Dillon, John

Title	Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	3
Issue	2
Pages	158 –160
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Dillon, John
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a "work in progress," but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an "objective" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system.

Ch. 1, ‘The Scholar and his Books’, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius’ life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries—necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries.

For one salient aspect of Simplicius’ work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor.

Ch. 2, ‘Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom’, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors—in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least—but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius’ own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction.

Ch. 3, ‘Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics’, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle’s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one’s elbow, as one generally does not—in this case, chiefly Simplicius’ vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle’s doctrine.

Ch. 4, ‘Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias’, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius’ chief authority—quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply "the commentator," and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition.

Ch. 5, ‘Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration’, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the "harmonising" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well.

Lastly, in Ch. 6, ‘Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology’, he deals with Simplicius’ fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term "pagan"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students.

An Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius’ library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School.

At any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt

Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2014
By: Sellars, J. T.

Title	Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sellars, J. T.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Who was Simplicius? He was a Neoplatonist working in the first decades of the sixth century AD under whose name five commentaries have come down to us from antiquity. These commentaries are on Aristotle's Physics, Categories, De Caelo, and De Anima, and the Enchiridion of Epictetus, although his authorship of the commentary on the De Anima has been a subject of scholarly debate. In these often lengthy commentaries, Simplicius quotes from a wide range of philosophical texts where he thinks it relevant to his discussion of Aristotle's text and, in the process, preserves fragments from a number of otherwise lost works.

Simplicius' chief claim to fame, then, is that he has become a vital source for our knowledge of Presocratic philosophy. Without Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, our knowledge of early Greek philosophy would be significantly reduced.

This is the standard line. We should all be thankful to Simplicius for his habit of quoting texts in full rather than merely naming them in passing. We are thankful. But is there any more to him? Is Simplicius himself an interesting or significant philosopher? Is there anything more to him beyond his role as a doxographical source? Baltussen, in devoting a monograph to him, thinks there is, but he is conscious many will not share that view. Consequently, his book opens with an apologetic and slightly defensive introduction in which he tries to make the case for reading Simplicius as more than merely a quarry from which to extract quotations. Part of the task includes a defense of Late Platonism (Baltussen deliberately avoids the usual label "Neoplatonism"), to which Simplicius adhered. We are encouraged to put our reservations to one side and reassess Simplicius afresh.

The opening chapter introduces Simplicius' method and practice as a commentator. His commentaries differ from many other examples from late antiquity to the extent that they don't seem to be straightforward records of oral lectures taken "from the voice of" (apo phônês) the author. Instead, they are extended written works, conceived as textbooks for pagan teachers explicitly designed to preserve as much as possible of the pagan philosophical tradition—hence the extensive quotations. In these often lengthy texts, Simplicius explicitly rejects originality, but Baltussen argues that we ought not to take this at face value and that these expressions of modesty are, in part, made out of respect for his teachers.

The second chapter deals with Simplicius' role as a source for the Presocratics. Baltussen welcomes Catherine Osborne's approach of reading fragments of the Presocratics within their doxographical context, as this adds to Simplicius' potential significance. What is important, of course, is to gain a sense of the motive and agenda of the doxographer. According to Baltussen, Simplicius' aim is to locate all of the Presocratics within a Late Platonic framework that emphasizes unity within the pagan philosophical tradition conceived as "a single venerable and ancient message." This may be so up to a point, but to what extent would Simplicius welcome Democritus (or Epicurus) into this unified tradition? It would have been interesting to hear more about those thinkers who don't neatly fit within this syncretized history of philosophy, precisely because the points of disagreement might help to bring Simplicius' own position into sharper focus. Baltussen raises the question of whether Simplicius had access to the works of Presocratics directly or merely to collections of excerpts but doesn't draw any firm conclusions either way.

The third chapter turns to Simplicius' use of early Peripatetics such as Theophrastus and Eudemus. Baltussen argues that Simplicius took the early Peripatetics—and especially Theophrastus—very seriously in his exegeses of Aristotle because Theophrastus would have known Aristotle personally, giving his glosses an added authority. This is a departure from the attitudes of previous Platonic commentators on Aristotle. Although Simplicius shares the wider Late Platonic desire to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, there is also a strong desire to get Aristotle right, and no one is more likely to help in that task than Theophrastus. Baltussen suggests that we conceive Theophrastus himself as part of the Platonic commentary tradition, given his own comments on the Timaeus, but philosophical engagement with a previous author is not quite the same thing as commentary.

The Peripatetic theme continues in the fourth chapter, which is devoted to Alexander of Aphrodisias. Baltussen offers a detailed and slightly labored analysis of the motivations behind Simplicius' regular and extensive quotation from Alexander, but the question seems relatively straightforward. Why did Simplicius make use of Alexander's commentaries on Aristotle in his own commentaries on Aristotle? Because Alexander has lots of interesting things to say about Aristotle. The focus here again is on form rather than content, methodology rather than philosophy.

The fifth chapter examines the Platonic commentary tradition before Simplicius and discusses Simplicius' use of Plotinus and the Post-Plotinian tradition of harmonizing commentaries from Porphyry onwards. Simplicius' immediate teacher Ammonius is discussed briefly but deserves more attention. For instance, we were told in the opening chapter that Simplicius' rejection of originality was mere self-deprecation, but presumably that claim could be tested to some degree via a comparison between his own views and those of his teacher. The same goes for his later mentor Damascius.

The final chapter turns to the theme of polemic and focuses its attention on Simplicius' exchanges with his arch-rival John Philoponus, another Platonic commentator, but also a Christian. Baltussen prefaces his discussion with an account of the tensions and hostilities between Christians and pagans in late antiquity. Once again, Simplicius is presented as the defender of an embattled pagan philosophical tradition, taking Philoponus to task for his attacks against Proclus and Aristotle in De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Proclum. Baltussen highlights the rhetorical aspects of Simplicius' polemics rather than the content of the dispute, so once more methodology is the principal focus. The intensity of Simplicius' personal references to Philoponus ("raving swine") is contrasted with his sober and respectful references to Alexander.

An epilogue sums up the proceedings. One of the central themes to emerge from the book as a whole is the claim that, in order to understand what Simplicius is doing in his commentaries, we must take into account his commitment to pagan religion as well as philosophy. We should see the commentaries not merely as "scholarly schoolbooks" but rather as steps on a long road toward a more existential transformation. This religious dimension of Late Platonism should not be overlooked, Baltussen argues, if we want to understand properly what Simplicius is trying to achieve. The commentaries are his attempt to preserve the entire pagan philosophical and religious tradition within an increasingly hostile Christian world. On this final point, as well as a number of others, Baltussen sketches a broad context within which to think about what Simplicius is
doing but there is much less in the way of detailed analysis of what he actually did do, what he argued for, or what philosophical
positions he himself held. This is in part simply a reflection of the sheer length of the commentaries themselves and no one could
offer a detailed analysis of their contents within the covers of a single volume.
I said at the outset that five commentaries have come down to us under the name of Simplicius. Baltussen discusses only three of
them. He puts to one side the De Anima commentary and he may well be right to do so, but it would have been nice to have seen a
fuller discussion of the text and the question of its authorship.[2] He also more or less ignores the commentary on the Enchiridion of
Epictetus. Although it does get the occasional mention (e.g. p. 43) Baltussen proceeds as if it doesn't exist, at one point writing 'all
three extant commentaries' (p. 34). In his interesting attempt to reconstruct 'the library of Simplicius' (pp. 211-15), neither
Epictetus nor Arrian get a mention. This is a great shame for a number of reasons. The in Ench. is unique as the only surviving
commentary on a Stoic text to come down to us. Moreover, it is a commentary by a Late Platonist, and as a rule Late Platonists only
wrote commentaries on Plato and Aristotle.[3] The way in which Late Platonists brought Aristotle into their curriculum is a
well-worn subject, but the desire to bring in a Stoic text is quite unusual. It complicates Simplicius' activity as a commentator in a
number of interesting and significant ways. Presumably Baltussen would argue that this is part of Simplicius' desire to unite and
then preserve the entire pagan philosophical tradition in an increasingly hostile Christian world, but if that is the case then the in
Ench. would form a potentially significant piece of evidence for Baltussen's thesis, one that has sadly been left out of the account. There is much in Baltussen's book that is of interest, but I'm not sure how far it goes in fleshing out a more rounded portrait of Simplicius. The focus of the volume throughout is squarely on Simplicius' use of other authors—i.e., his quotations—rather than Simplicius as an author or a philosopher in his own right. Baltussen consciously avoids discussing Simplicius qua philosopher on the basis that this has been done by others elsewhere. This is true to an extent, but what would be nice is a more synthetic volume that brings these discussions together in order to give us a complete picture. This book doesn't do that, although, to be fair, it doesn't ever claim to be trying to.

What remains a desideratum, then, is a monograph that might combine Baltussen's methodological researches with an account of what is philosophically valuable in Simplicius. Most of my critical comments above have been asking for more discussion on various points, and no author can do everything in just one volume. I certainly hope that this book will encourage further work on Simplicius by both Baltussen and others that will help us to gain a fuller portrait of this still relatively neglected philosopher. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MiDP9FxKLHavo2S

Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2008
By: Todd, Robert B.

Title	Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	Aestimatio
Volume	5
Pages	210–224
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In Philosophy and Exegesis in Simpliciusf a preparatory study for a 
history of the ancient philosophical commentary  [224nnl0,  13],  Han 
Baltussen addresses the  ‘methodology’  of pagan antiquity’s last  ma
jor Platonist and its greatest philosophical scholar, Simplicius of Cili
cia  (AD  ca  480- ca  540).  What  ‘methodology’  means  can  be  best 
appreciated if the book’s general conclusions are first summarized. [introduction p. 210]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oXKF0eqANW36ItV

Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, Tome I, 2002
By: Sheppard, Anne D.

Title	Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, Tome I
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2002
Journal	The Classical Review, New Series
Volume	52
Issue	2
Pages	377-378
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sheppard, Anne D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

All Neoplatonic commentaries are discursive, and those of Simplicius are among the most discursive. It takes 130 pages of this volume for Simplicius to reach Chapter 20 of Epictetus' short work. However, as with many Neoplatonic commentaries, the interest of this one does not lie in what it tells us about Epictetus—whose philosophy Simplicius misunderstood in some important respects, as Hadot points out in her introduction (pp. ci–cxvii). Rather, it is worth reading for what it tells us about Simplicius' own philosophical views. It is unusual among Neoplatonic commentaries in dealing with an ethical text, and the discussions of τὰ Ἐφ' ἡμῖν (what is within our power) and the spiritual exercises recommended by Epictetus are of considerable interest.

Hadot's introduction offers an updated version of her views on Simplicius' life, work, and philosophical system; a chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching; an account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines; and a short history of the text. Finally, there is an appendix on Fate, Providence, and human freedom in Neoplatonism, which covers Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, as well as Simplicius. Of these, the account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines and the appendix are entirely new, while the chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching is an updated and lightly revised version of a chapter from her book, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin. Hiéroclès et Simplicius (Paris, 1978).

The first two chapters of the introduction repeat, in a clear and accessible form, views she has already published elsewhere and is well known for. She reiterates her now largely accepted demonstration that Simplicius' philosophical system is essentially the same as that of Damascius—not, as Praechter thought, a simplified Alexandrian system—and, more controversially, continues to maintain, with Tardieu, that his commentaries were written in Harran after 532. The chapter on the history of the text abbreviates the longer account in the editio maior and explains the principles of the editio minor, acknowledging the help of Concetta Luna in simplifying the apparatus. A small number of readings that differ from those of the editio maior are indicated in a footnote on p. cxxvi.

Hadot's translation is divided into sections with helpful headings and subheadings, and, together with her full notes, provides a great deal of assistance in understanding Simplicius' text. This volume deserves a warm welcome as a further installment in the enormous contribution Hadot has made to the understanding of Simplicius over many years. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before the second volume appears to complement it. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lwxAqvhdfMDm8ss

Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4, 2012
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	The Classical Review
Volume	62
Issue	2
Pages	465-467
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Thanks to the Ancient Commentators project, almost all of Simplicius' commentaries are now translated. This volume completes the gigantic On Aristotle's Physics. Within this monument, Book 1 must be the most read by scholars today because Aristotle's criticism of several physical theories leads Simplicius to multiply quotations of his forerunners and to preserve for his contemporaries (as well as for us) much Presocratic material (by Simplicius' time much of this had already become very rare: see In Phys. 144.25-9 on Parmenides).
In Chapter 1.3, Aristotle discusses the unity of Being he ascribes to the Eleatic philosophers. Simplicius comments abundantly. Citing Theophrastus, Alexander, and Porphyry, he reproduces the 'Eleatic syllogism,' which affirms Being and excludes not-Being, so as to prove Parmenides' thesis that Being is one and to assert, via Plato's Sophist, that Parmenides recognizes the existence of not-Being. Moreover, he assigns this reading to Aristotle himself, considering his criticism as an expression of later conceptual and linguistic refinements.
In Chapter 1.4, Aristotle discusses Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Empedocles. Here again, Simplicius contributes to the debate by his numerous quotations and by his analysis of rival commentators (Theophrastus, Alexander, Porphyry, and Nicolaus of Damascus). He considers how Anaxagoras and Empedocles can say that their principles are both one and many. Then, confronted with Aristotle's criticism of homoiomeria and nous, he gives a non-physical reading of Anaxagoras' account, explaining that it talks figuratively about a level of reality exceeding our mental capacities. In other words, in both these chapters, he attempts to reconcile Aristotle's physics with Presocratic philosophy so as to build a coherent system from the whole pagan tradition.
This volume could be said to consist of two books. Each translation is due to a different author; there are two introductions, two translations, and two selections of notes, and only the index and bibliography are in common. There are only minor differences in the style of the translations, but greater ones occur elsewhere. I shall discuss them separately.
As to H.'s introduction, two things must be noted. First, she contributes to the fierce debate by proposing a stimulating hypothesis about the place where such a large commentary could have been written: discrepancies, sometimes substantial, occurring in Simplicius' treatment of his sources are the result of his having written in various places. However, they could also be explained by the difficulty at that time of keeping every useful book constantly at hand: scholars were often compelled to write from memory. Second, H. summarizes the treatment Simplicius gives of Melissus and Parmenides, moving abruptly from one episode to the other. She perfectly communicates the sometimes confusing character of Simplicius' text. Her notes provide useful documentation rather than an explanatory commentary: she mentions parallels and justifies her translation but avoids going into detail about the philosophical issues.
T. opts to draw a clear map of the text, insisting on its structure and summing up its main arguments. Moreover, most of the references are given within the translation (in brackets), while end-notes (fewer but longer) are devoted to explaining the contents of and issues in Simplicius' commentary (i.e., his reading of the Presocratic fragments).
The translation is remarkably successful in rendering the stylistic variations in Simplicius' text, which constantly moves from paraphrase to quotation or philosophical commentary. The Greek text largely follows H. Diels' edition (1882), sometimes as emended by later editors of the Presocratic fragments (DK inter alios).
Now for some points of detail. In this Neoplatonic context, H. first suggests translating noeros as 'thinker' (and related words), 'because neither "mental" nor "intellectual" have the grammatical flexibility required' (p. 100 on In Phys. 143.18-19). Nevertheless, a little further on (p. 57 = In Phys. 147.26) she translates en tois noerois as 'in the mental area.' Another point concerns T.'s translation of Anaxagoras' vovs as 'Mind' (pp. 81-4). My intention here is not to contest this translation for interpreting Anaxagoras but to remind the reader that Simplicius must have connected this concept with his Neoplatonic vocabulary so that 'Intellect' seems a better translation. Otherwise, it becomes very problematic to translate the following: kai diakekritai oun kai hênôtai kata Anaxagoran ta eidê kai amphô dia ton noun echei. T. writes: 'In Anaxagoras' view, the kinds owe both their separation and their unity to Mind' (p. 84 = In Phys. 176.31-2); but it is difficult to exclude the likelihood that Simplicius, with his Neoplatonic background, was reading these words with reference to Intellect and Forms.
H. translates to on hen men esti, polla de ouk estin as 'Being is one and not many' (p. 37 = In Phys. 126.8). Since Simplicius has just referred to the Sophist and next opposes Being to rest and motion, it would be preferable to translate as 'is not many things.' Further (p. 46 = In Phys. 135.24), H. emends a quotation from the Sophist, turning tou ontos into tou mê ontos, following Plato's manuscripts. However, the text given by Simplicius makes sense and ought not to be altered (see my Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste (2007), pp. 140-1).
One could wonder why both authors have chosen, as is often done in this collection, to give the full lemmas from Aristotle's Physics, while Simplicius' manuscripts and Diels' edition give only a shortened version (i.e., 'from ... to ...'). Although it is risky to translate a text that possibly was not the one read by Simplicius, the decision should at least have been made explicit.
Finally, the bibliography. On Simplicius, H. and T. refer only to two recent books: H. Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius (2008), and P. Golitsis, Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d'Aristote (2008). The remainder of the short bibliography concerns the Presocratics and Aristotle. One would expect at least to find reference to a book and a paper written by A. Stevens: Postérité de l'Être. Simplicius interprète de Parménide (1989) and 'La Physique d'Empédocle selon Simplicius,' RBPh (1989), 65-74. They provide commentaries on and (partial) translations of the chapters studied here.
With its English-Greek glossary, Greek-English index, subject index, and index of passages, this book is an extraordinarily useful tool for scholars. It provides an up-to-date translation of some of the richest pages about Presocratic philosophy. Now we can dream about a new edition of this commentary to replace the often misleading version of Diels.
[author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fltNdJ3NAIOLUAG

Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro, 2005
By: Todd, Robert B.

Title	Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Bryn Mawr Classical Review
Volume	10
Issue	38
Pages	750
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

It is a sure sign that a field in classical studies is maturing when the fragments of its 
authors come in for close scrutiny. Where the Greek Aristotelian commentators are 
concerned, the way was pointed, in this as in so many other areas, by the late Paul 
Moraux, who in his early and epochal study of Alexander of Aphrodisias's 
psychological works included an appendix of selected fragments of this 
commentator's lost exegesis of Aristotle's De animaJ Later he reconstructed thefragments of the same philosopher's treatment of the Posterior Analytics.2 More 
recently, Arabists in particular have worked on fragments of Alexander's 
commentaries on the Physics and De generatione et corruptione, while Moraux in 
the posthumously published third volume of his Aristotelismus surveyed the 
fragments of several of the lost commentaries.3 One of these was the commentary 
on the De caelo, the first part of which Andrea Rescigno, in the first of two 
projected volumes, has now treated exhaustively in his edition of the fragments of 
the commentary on Book 1. [introduction p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4vzysjSHY0mmOvC

Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator, 2010
By: Menn, Stephen

Title	Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	The Classical World
Volume	104
Issue	1
Pages	117-118
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius, however, is not so neglected or undervalued as this might suggest: his projects of harmonizing Plato and Aristotle (and sometimes other philosophers), and of defending pagan philosophy against Christian attacks (leading to his polemics against Philoponus), have been much studied both by Anglophone scholars around Richard Sorabji and by Francophone scholars around Ilsetraut Hadot and Philippe Hoffmann. "Neoplatonist" is no longer an insult, and it now seems normal that in later antiquity reading and commenting on Plato and Aristotle should also be a way of doing philosophy. If Simplicius' religious and harmonistic aims, and his scholarly methods, are not ours, we are interested in alternatives to our own way of doing things. But we have lacked a systematic study of Simplicius' methods in his commentaries, and of his strategies for using authors besides Plato and Aristotle (not just the pre-Socratics, but also Theophrastus and Eudemus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, and Proclus and his school, whom Baltussen discusses in turn).

Baltussen's aims are laudable, but his book is not a safe guide; Golitsis, while not comprehensive, is much better. Baltussen pursues some good questions: why does Simplicius quote so much (just to save the texts from the wave of Christian barbarism?), what are his sources, and how does he handle so much information? (Actually, Simplicius discusses no more writers than Proclus, but he cites verbatim much more, and tries to go beyond secondary sources.) Baltussen needlessly defends Simplicius against the bizarre idea that he knew the pre-Socratics only through Alexander of Aphrodisias. However, it is true that Simplicius sometimes uses secondary sources, and also that Alexander was very important for him. Baltussen says that "overall Simplicius considered [Alexander a] reliable guide and interpreter... Disagreement is expressed in muted form and head-on confrontation is rare" (192). This both understates and overstates Simplicius' relation to Alexander and misses his method as a commentator.

Simplicius' Physics and De Caelo commentaries are in effect metacommentaries on Alexander's lost commentaries (his Categories commentary starts instead from Porphyry and Iamblichus). One important hermeneutic principle for Simplicius is that each treatise must have a single primary object (skopos), such that everything else it discusses is discussed on account of some relation to that object. Baltussen discusses this principle but misleadingly. On p. 117, he has Simplicius attribute to Alexander (top of the page) the view that the skopos of the De Caelo is the world, and (lower down) the view that it is the four elements; attribute to Iamblichus the view that it is the universe; and Simplicius himself endorse the view that it is "both the universe... and the four elements."

In fact, Simplicius attributes to Iamblichus the view that it is only the fifth (heavenly) body, and to Alexander the view that it is both the world and the five simple bodies. Simplicius himself says that the skopos is just the five simple bodies. The mistake is particularly serious because Baltussen suggests that Simplicius does not really make up his mind and opts for plural skopoi, when Simplicius emphatically insists that each treatise must have a single skopos and criticizes Alexander for breaking that rule. (On p. 36, Baltussen seems to suggest that Simplicius took the single-skopos rule from Alexander, but in the passage he cites Simplicius is criticizing Alexander.)

On p. 23 and 158, Syrianus (died ca. 437 A.D.) is listed among Simplicius' teachers. On p. 81, the inset translation of In Physica 161.23-162.2 turns the text into nonsense, taking proéchthēsan (from proagō) as if it were from a compound of achthomai ("am grieved") and misunderstanding Simplicius' term proéchthēsan ("charitable interpretation"). (Baltussen doesn't usually quote the Greek, so the reader must be on guard.)

On p. 190 (and 175), he turns Simplicius' comments on constructing an equilateral triangle into a discussion of the first postulate, to draw a straight line. He notes skeptically that Simplicius "mentions a work 'On Prayer' by Aristotle... in which he claims that Aristotle knew of a transcendent intellect" (182), but On Prayer is well-attested, and of course Aristotle believed in a transcendent intellect; Simplicius' audacious claim in this passage is that Aristotle, like Plato, believed in a divine first principle above intellect and being.

Baltussen's discussions of Philoponus and Christianity are particularly misleading. On p. 185, he cites Leslie MacCoull as putting some of Philoponus' arguments in the context of "the theological debate among Arrianists [sic]", but Philoponus was a Monophysite, the Arians had nothing to do with it, and MacCoull does not say they did. Baltussen also speaks here of Philoponus' aims in his "polemic with Simplicius," but there seems to be no evidence that Philoponus knew of Simplicius' existence. [the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nycXB8DgJkcMbQt

Title	Review of: Dorotheus, Guilelmus (trans.), Simplicius Commentarium in decem Categorias Aristotelis (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Versiones Latinae temporis resuscitatarum litterarum, Bd. 8)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Bochumer philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter
Volume	5
Issue	1
Pages	262-263
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Summerell, Orrin Finn
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lxHRful4FTiSy2L

Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008, 2010
By: Janssens, Jules L.

Title	Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume	72
Issue	1
Pages	193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Janssens, Jules L.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Deze basiskenmerken worden grondig uitgewerkt in het boek. Een goed idee van de uitzonderlijke rijkdom aan geciteerde bronnen in Simplicius' diverse werken krijgt de lezer dankzij een overzichtstabel (p. 30). De vijf beginselen van Simplicius' exegetische methode (zoals door hemzelf verwoord in zijn commentaar op de Categorieën) worden nader toegelicht (met onder meer aandacht voor het kritisch vergelijken van handschriften en voor de diverse wijzen van citeren). In Simplicius' opvatting is de studie van Aristoteles duidelijk propedeutisch aan die van Plato (enkel deze laatste laat toe de goddelijke waarheid te bereiken). Tot slot verschijnt Simplicius als de laatste verwoorder van een heidense theologie; in die zin is zijn verwerping van Philoponus niet zozeer het resultaat van een polemische ingesteldheid, maar veeleer de uitdrukking van een godsdienstige motivatie. Van groot belang is ook dat Simplicius' werken losstaan van enige onderwijsopdracht en dat de synthese tussen de verschillende bronnen die hij opstelt, gevoerd wordt in propria voce, niet apo phonis.

Deze grondideeën worden rijkelijk geïllustreerd via een overzicht van Simplicius' interpretatie van de Griekse filosofie vóór hem (hoofdstukken 2-5). Achtereenvolgens worden de presocratici, de peripatetici, Alexander van Afrodisias en de platonische commentatoren behandeld. Van de vele belangwekkende gedachten die Baltussen formuleert, vermeld ik graag de volgende: het Griekse denken wordt volgens Simplicius gekenmerkt door één grote eenheid (betekenisvol hiervoor is zijn karakterisering van de presocratici als platonici avant la lettre); Simplicius vertoont duidelijk syncretistische neigingen; Alexander van Afrodisias is een belangrijke externe stem voor het uitdiepen van het harmonisatieproces tussen Aristoteles' en Plato's denken, dat zo kenmerkend is voor het latere platonisme; filosoferen betekent voor Simplicius geen zoektocht naar originaliteit, maar het beantwoorden van teksten, waaraan een autoriteitswaarde werd toegekend; de mogelijkheid dat Simplicius rechtstreeks toegang had tot Plotinus' Enneaden, maar waarschijnlijk niet tot Syrianus' werk.

Het lijdt geen twijfel dat Baltussen met zijn studie baanbrekend werk heeft geleverd. Hij toont op overtuigende wijze aan dat Simplicius meer was dan een 'archivaris'. Hij was daadwerkelijk een 'filosoof met een project'. De grote lijnen hiervan worden in dit boek meesterlijk uitgetekend.
[the entire review]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYsHY65rt8Xj8n3

Review of: I. Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines, 2015
By: Chemi, Germana

Title	Review of: I. Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2015
Journal	Studia graeco-arabica
Volume	5
Pages	385-388
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chemi, Germana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

L’A. présente en ce volume un bilan raisonné des recherches contemporaines concernant la vie et l’œuvre du néoplatonicien Simplicius, ainsi que des études sur sa réception dans le monde arabe. Le volume contient aussi deux contributions de Ph. Vallat portant respectivement sur la biographie de Simplicius (p. 102-129) et sur la réception arabe de son commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote (p. 241-264).

La première section (Biographie, p. 13-134), qui fait suite à la préface (p. 11-12), concerne la biographie de Simplicius. Cette partie du volume aborde les sujets suivants : le nom de Simplicius (p. 13-14), son origine et sa formation (p. 14-16), le milieu culturel d’Alexandrie à l’époque de ses études avec Ammonius (p. 16-17), le départ d’Athènes (p. 17-19), l’exil en Perse (p. 23-24) et la question du lieu où Simplicius et ses collègues se seraient rendus après avoir quitté la cour de Chosroès Ier (p. 25-129). Cette section s’achève par un sommaire général (p. 130-133) et trois épigrammes que l’A. attribue à Simplicius (p. 133-134).

La deuxième section (Les œuvres conservées sauf In Phys. et In De Caelo, p. 135-266) concerne les commentaires de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Épictète (p. 148-181), sur le De Anima (p. 182-228) et sur les Catégories d’Aristote (p. 228-266). L’A. introduit son analyse de ces trois ouvrages par un aperçu général sur la datation des commentaires de Simplicius (p. 135-148) : conformément à la thèse déjà avancée dans ses travaux antérieurs, elle considère les commentaires de Simplicius comme ayant tous été écrits après l’exil en Perse.

La troisième section (Les œuvres partiellement ou entièrement perdues, p. 267-283) a pour objet les textes suivants, que l’A. attribue à Simplicius : un commentaire aux Éléments d’Euclide, un commentaire sur le Phédon (p. 267-269), un épitomé de la Physique de Théophraste (p. 269), un commentaire sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote (p. 269-277), un commentaire sur La secte pythagoricienne de Jamblique (p. 277-278), un commentaire sur les Météorologiques d’Aristote (p. 279-280), un commentaire sur l’Ars oratoria d’Hermogène (p. 280-282) et un traité sur les syllogismes (p. 282).

Suivent enfin un Épilogue (p. 285-288) et une bibliographie (p. 289-311).
[introduction p. 385]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v

Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, préface par Ph. Hoffmann, 2015
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, préface par Ph. Hoffmann
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2015
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	33
Pages	115-128
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius n’a ni le prestige d’un Proclus ni l’audace philosophique d’un Damascius. Sans doute son rôle de Commentateur d’Aristote est à la fois la cause de sa relégation et le cœur de son originalité. Contraint de suivre la logique d’un texte différent de celle du système qui lui sert de grille d’analyse, il tire de cette lecture systématique des éléments qu’il doit harmoniser avec l’orthodoxie néoplatonicienne.

À cet égard, la question de l’infini est symptomatique de sa méthode, puisqu’elle montre de quelle façon se construit une doctrine originale sur la base du texte aristotélicien et de la toile de fond néoplatonicienne : Simplicius évince l’ἄπειρον du sensible, pour le réserver à l’intelligible, mais il retient un procès à l’infini, τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον, et lui attribue une assise ontologique. Autrement dit, il n’admet pas simplement un « bon » et un « mauvais » infini, l’un qui vaudrait dans l’intelligible, l’autre qui en serait l’image sensible et dégradée. Il pose plutôt une forme positive de l’infinité dans le sensible même.

On peut dès lors remercier Ph. Soulier d’avoir fait la pleine lumière sur la revalorisation du sensible dans les dernières pages du néoplatonisme tardo-antique, c’est-à-dire d’avoir exposé avec une telle minutie comment l’analyse de la Physique permettait de déployer les propriétés de l’infini qui étaient caractéristiques du sensible, en accord avec la thèse néoplatonicienne la plus autorisée.
[conclusion p. 127-128]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5DpQiBfHF99tVXi

Review of: Thiel 1999: Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen, 2001
By: Luna, Concetta

Title	Review of: Thiel 1999: Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Mnemosyne
Volume	54
Issue	4
Pages	482–500
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Luna, Concetta
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is an extensive review of R. Thiel’s monograph Simplikios und das Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen. The author of the review, C. Luna, reproduces the book’s discussion of the location where Neoplatonic philosophers settled after leaving Athens due to the ban on pagan philosophy in 529 AD. They went to Persia and later returned to the Byzantine Empire after the peace treaty was signed. The only known historical account of their location is from Agathias, who states that they were attracted to the wisdom of King Chosroes and stayed at his court. However, they eventually left and, using a clause in the peace treaty, returned to the Byzantine Empire without having to renounce their philosophical or religious beliefs. The text examines two hypotheses as to where they went: Athens or Alexandria, but a new hypothesis is presented based on Simplicius' texts that the philosophers settled in Harran, a city close to the Persian border. The text also discusses the possibility of Simplicius returning to Athens, Alexandria, or Harran. Thiel, believes it is unlikely the philosophers went to Alexandria because the patriarch of the city would not have allowed them to continue their philosophical and anti-Christian activities. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MDj448FZ9whVcZN

Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy, 2016
By: D'Ancona Costa, Cristina

Title	Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Studia graeco-arabica
Volume	6
Pages	294-301
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

For Bowen, the answer lies in the well-known debate on the nature of the heavens that arose in the first half of the 6th century between Simplicius and Philoponus. Challenged by Philoponus in a lost work—whose main, though not exclusive, source of knowledge for us is Simplicius himself—the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and divinity of the heavens was defended by Simplicius in his commentary on De Caelo, where he also directed harsh criticisms at Philoponus.

In Bowen’s book, four introductory chapters (pp. 27-93) precede the translation of Simplicius’ In De Caelo II, 10-12 (= pp. 470.29-510.35 Heiberg), followed by a series of comments on selected topics (pp. 201-98). Figures and tables are provided at the end of the introduction (pp. 22-25) and between the translation and the comments (pp. 181-97). Bowen frames much of his discussion against the backdrop of Simplicius’ struggle against Philoponus. Chapter One opens with the claim:

“The great digression at the end of Simplicius’ In De Caelo 2.12 [492.25-510.35] is an apologia precipitated by Philoponus, the renegade Platonist, and his attack on Aristotle’s arguments for a fifth simple body, aether” (p. 27).

Even though Philoponus’ rejection of Aristotelian cosmology is not explicitly mentioned in Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12, Bowen considers it Simplicius’ real target. Philoponus’ attack on the theory of the aether and its movement lies in the background of what, at first glance, appears to be a highly specialized discussion of the difficulties in the homocentric theory and an excursus on their solutions.

Bowen’s interpretation centers on the idea that Simplicius was well aware of the limitations of the homocentric theory. Faced with Philoponus’ objections, he sought a solution that was compatible with his own assumption of the circular and, consequently, eternal motion of the heavens. Philoponus’ main objection is as follows: if it were true that the entire cosmos rotates about its center, then the planets should not exhibit rotations about their own axes, nor should they have apogees and perigees—an argument that, according to Bowen, Simplicius could only agree with. In fact, this was precisely the reason he sided with Ptolemy. However, Simplicius could by no means endorse the general conclusion Philoponus drew from this, namely that there is no aether endowed with circular, eternal motion.

Bowen argues that Philoponus’ criticism “brings to the fore two points against Aristotle,” namely the rotation of the planets about their axes and their apogees and perigees, “in which he sides with Philoponus.” The danger here is heresy: Simplicius is now obliged to show that his agreement with Philoponus does not lead to Philoponus’ blasphemous conclusion (p. 28), hence the subtitle of Bowen’s book, In Defense of a Heresy.

This reconstruction hinges on linking Simplicius’ statements in his commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12—especially in the section labeled “digression”—to Philoponus. As Bowen puts it, “The digression is the apologia in full” (p. 64). As noted earlier, this long passage, which concludes Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 12, addresses difficulties in the cosmic model presented in Metaphysics XII 8, where all the spheres rotate around the Earth, the center of the universe (pp. 14, 92). However, Bowen maintains that, beyond its explicit content, the “digression” is in reality a response to Philoponus. The latter is not mentioned directly; instead, Simplicius presents Xenarchus’ objections and counters them with the arguments developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias.

Only after addressing these objections, “long after Philoponus’ objections to the Aristotelian aether have been answered, does Simplicius again take up, without mentioning Philoponus, the question of the homocentric planetary theory (...). So the astronomical digression (παρέκβασις) at the close of In De Caelo 2.12 is, logically speaking, a part of Simplicius’ attempt to deal with Philoponus” (p. 15). [introduction p. 294-295]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PxYyMRyYuxV6BPl

Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella, 2013
By: Watson, Wilfred G. E. (Ed.), Ribichini, Sergio (Ed.), Loretz, Oswald (Ed.), Zamora, José Antonio (Ed.)

Title	Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	Münster
Publisher	Ugarit
Series	Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Volume	404
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Watson, Wilfred G. E. , Ribichini, Sergio , Loretz, Oswald , Zamora, José Antonio
Translator(s)

Anlässlich eines besonderen Geburtstag von Paolo Xella widmen ihm seine Kollegen und Freunde eine Festschrift. Den Interessen des bekannten Gelehrten folgend ist das Buch in drei Abschnitte unterteilt, in "Archäologie - Kunstgeschichte - Numismatik", "Philologie - Epigraphik" und "History - Die Geschichte der Religionen - Historiographie". Mehr als 50 Artikel liegen den Fokus vor allem auf die Welt der phönizischen Levante bis nach Spanien. Neben einer großen Zahl von Aufsätzen in italienischen Sprache sind Forschungsergebnisse in Englisch, Deutsch und Französisch zu verzeichnen. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iUTyM3hPAwKbnMb

Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse, 2017
By: Baghdassarian, Fabienne (Ed.), Guyomarc'h, Gweltaz (Ed.)

Title	Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2017
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Peeters Publishers
Series	Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Baghdassarian, Fabienne , Guyomarc'h, Gweltaz
Translator(s)

La conception aristotélicienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions épistémologiques, archéologiques et proprement théologiques, qui constituent à la fois un défi pour Aristote lui-même et un ensemble de problèmes qu'il lègue à la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique à son égard. Restituée au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la théologie aristotélicienne voit s'actualiser les potentialités qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-même, déjà, commençait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans prétendre à l'exhaustivité, souhaite, par la diversité de ses contributions, donner à lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient exégétiques ou polémiques, et tracer quelques linéaments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QiCqTTrNNH1upWZ

Science théologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d’Aristote, 2014
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Coda, Elisa (Ed.), Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia (Ed.)

Title	Science théologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d’Aristote
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2014
Published in	De l'Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche
Pages	277-363
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Coda, Elisa , Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia
Translator(s)

En hommage aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche sur la philosophie naturelle dans le Moyen Âge latin, sur l’astronomie et la cosmologie, mais aussi sur les commentaires arabes au De Caelo d’Aristote, et plus généralement sur la postérité syriaque et arabe de la pensée aristotélicienne, cette étude générale portera sur un texte grec de l’Antiquité tardive : le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo.

Son propos est de considérer la nature de la religion philosophique néoplatonicienne dans le commentaire de Simplicius et d’en proposer une interprétation d’ensemble, en nouant les fils d’une recherche engagée dans trois publications antérieures : un article ancien consacré à la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon et à la question de la structure physique de la substance céleste, et deux autres études, plus récentes, consacrées à la triade chaldaïque Amour - Vérité - Foi (Érōs, Alêtheia, Pistis), qui a été formalisée par Proclus comme principe dynamique de la prière, et sur laquelle les commentaires à la Physique et au De Caelo offrent de précieux témoignages.

Cette triade de puissances anagogiques est à l’œuvre notamment dans cet « hymne » au Démiurge que constitue le Commentaire au De Caelo. Au cours de la présente enquête, consacrée à une interprétation globale de l’œuvre de Simplicius, on complétera le dossier déjà rassemblé au sujet de la triade chaldaïque, en produisant notamment deux textes supplémentaires de Simplicius qui confirment explicitement que l’élaboration d’une pistis philosophique, à l’extrême fin de l’Antiquité, doit se comprendre dans le contexte de la controverse païenne contre l’« athéisme » chrétien.

La traduction commentée d’un long extrait du commentaire, en annexe, permettra enfin d’étudier de près les présupposés spécifiquement néoplatoniciens qui guident l’exégète dans sa lecture d’Aristote, et les enjeux théologiques qui dominent son interprétation du De Caelo et préparent, dans l’expérience de la Foi, une union de « sympathie » avec la substance même du Ciel et avec le Démiurge.

L’étude des œuvres philosophiques de l’Antiquité tardive, principalement des textes néoplatoniciens grecs, favorisée par un nombre impressionnant d’éditions critiques d’importance majeure, a connu ces dernières décennies un profond renouvellement herméneutique, grâce à une compréhension toujours approfondie des doctrines elles-mêmes, mais aussi à une attention accrue portée aux dimensions rhétoriques de ces textes, comme aux enjeux historiques, politiques, religieux, qui sont inséparables du très complexe système philosophique en devenir, forgé pendant près de quatre siècles, de Porphyre jusqu’aux derniers professeurs d’Alexandrie.

L’étude du néoplatonisme ne peut être séparée de l’histoire générale, politique et religieuse, de l’Antiquité tardive. La théologie savante et la philosophie sont intimement liées, soit que la théologie apparaisse comme une « partie » de la philosophie, soit que l’ensemble du système philosophique se désigne lui-même comme une théologie, ainsi que le montrent les ouvrages majeurs de Proclus, intitulés Peri tôn kata Platōna Theologias (Théologie Platonicienne) ou Stoicheiosis Theologikê (Éléments de théologie), qui présentent selon des modes d’exposition très différents le déploiement de l’ensemble du système.

La théologie savante s’enrichit et s’accompagne d’autres dimensions relevant du mode de vie même des philosophes néoplatoniciens et de leurs pratiques : rituels théurgiques, formes diverses de la piété à l’égard des dieux (eusebeia), mais aussi religion personnelle ou encore engagement dans la polémique anti-chrétienne.

L’interprétation des textes eux-mêmes a été renouvelée par une attention accrue portée aux genres littéraires philosophiques et à la dimension pragmatique des œuvres. Les analyses de Pierre Hadot, en particulier, nourries d’une réflexion sur les « jeux de langage » de Wittgenstein, ont contribué à renouveler l’interprétation des commentaires néoplatoniciens, ceux de Simplicius notamment, envisagés comme des œuvres littéraires à part entière, avec leur régime spécifique de systématicité, leurs règles, leurs codes, leurs finalités pragmatiques propres.

Au-delà de l’érudition scientifique et de la puissance conceptuelle qui caractérise le discours philosophique – nourri à la fois de la tradition péripatéticienne et des recherches des exégètes néoplatoniciens depuis Plotin et Porphyre – ces commentaires doivent se comprendre aussi comme des exercices de méditation spirituelle à finalité anagogique, que l’auteur pratique à la fois pour lui-même et pour ses destinataires, auditeurs ou lecteurs. Par leur dimension pragmatique, ils relèvent de la vie philosophique (bios) et ne sont plus seulement des éléments du discours philosophique (logos). [introduction p. 277-279]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ns8nL2OGXc4Xj6K

Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' De anima, 2008
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' De anima
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2008
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Series	Quellen und Studien zur Philosophie
Volume	85
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Während Aristoteles’ De anima Seele als Lebensprinzip des körperlichen Wesens definiert, ist sie für die neuplatonischen Kommentatoren dieser Schrift eine geistige, vom Körper trennbare Größe, die sich auf sich selbst zurückwenden kann. Die Studie untersucht, wie die Ausleger Johannes Philoponos, Priskian von Lydien (Pseudo-Simplikios) und Stephanos von Alexandrien (Pseudo-Philoponos) mit dieser Problematik umgingen. In einem ersten Teil werden die philosophischen Konzeptionen der einzelnen Kommentare je für sich dargestellt und historisch eingeordnet. Deren Wert für die De anima-Interpretation wird ebenso diskutiert wie die Identität ihrer Autoren und das Verhältnis des Philoponos zu seinem Lehrer Ammonios. Der zweite Teil ist die erste philosophische Rekonstruktion von Priskians Konzeption des Selbstbezugs der Seele, die als detaillierteste antike Darstellung des menschlichen Selbstbewusstseins gelten kann. Plotins Überlegungen zur Selbsterkenntnis des Geistes werden so auf die menschliche Person übertragen, dass diese sich konstituiert, indem sie um die Wiedergewinnung ihrer ursprünglichen Identität als geistiges Wesen ringt. Um dies zu erläutern unterscheidet Priskian mehrere Formen des Selbstbezugs und setzt sie in Beziehung zueinander. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' “De anima”, 2008
By: Perkams, Matthias

Title	Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles' “De anima”
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2008
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Während Aristoteles’ De anima Seele als Lebensprinzip des körperlichen Wesens definiert, ist sie für die neuplatonischen Kommentatoren dieser Schrift eine geistige, vom Körper trennbare Größe, die sich auf sich selbst zurückwenden kann. Die Studie untersucht, wie die Ausleger Johannes Philoponos, Priskian von Lydien (Pseudo-Simplikios) und Stephanos von Alexandrien (Pseudo-Philoponos) mit dieser Problematik umgingen. In einem ersten Teil werden die philosophischen Konzeptionen der einzelnen Kommentare je für sich dargestellt und historisch eingeordnet. Deren Wert für die De anima-Interpretation wird ebenso diskutiert wie die Identität ihrer Autoren und das Verhältnis des Philoponos zu seinem Lehrer Ammonios. Der zweite Teil ist die erste philosophische Rekonstruktion von Priskians Konzeption des Selbstbezugs der Seele, die als detaillierteste antike Darstellung des menschlichen Selbstbewusstseins gelten kann. Plotins Überlegungen zur Selbsterkenntnis des Geistes werden so auf die menschliche Person übertragen, dass diese sich konstituiert, indem sie um die Wiedergewinnung ihrer ursprünglichen Identität als geistiges Wesen ringt. Um dies zu erläutern unterscheidet Priskian mehrere Formen des Selbstbezugs und setzt sie in Beziehung zueinander. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

Self-motion according to Iamblichus, 2012
By: Opsomer, Jan

Title	Self-motion according to Iamblichus
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	33
Issue	2
Pages	259-290
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Opsomer, Jan
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Iamblichus' theory of self-motion has to be pieced together from various texts and passing remarks. Ever since Aristotle's critique, Plato's concept of the self-motive soul was felt to be problematic. Taking his lead from Plotinus, Iamblichus counters Aristotle's criticism by claiming that true self-motion transcends the opposition between activity and passivity. He moreover argues that it does not involve motion that is spatially extended. Hence it is non-physical. Primary self-motion is the reversion of the soul to itself, by which the soul constitutes itself, i.e. imparts life to itself. This motion is located at the level of essence or substance. The bestowal of life upon the body derives from this fundamental motion. As a result, animals are derivatively self-motive. Secondary self-motions are acts of thought in the broad sense. Contrary to the unmoved motion of intellect, the self-motion of the soul is not beyond time. This somehow fits Iamblichus' theory of the “changing self”. Iamblichus anticipates much of the later Platonic accounts of self-motion. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1Kioea09D5a6jXo

Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul, 2012
By: Menn, Stephen, Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Wilberding, James (Ed.)

Title	Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature
Pages	44-67
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Wilberding, James
Translator(s)

A central puzzle of recent scholarship on late Neoplatonism has been to understand how  what  Richard Sorabji  has called a ‘perfectly  crazy  position', the thesis of die harmony  of  Plato  and  Aristode,  nonetheless  ‘proved  philosophically  fruitful' — 
whereas, for instance, the same philosophers' perfectly crazy thesis of the harmony of Plato and Homer did not. In this chapter, starting from Hermias' commentary on a passage of the Phaedrus which poses a difficulty for harmonization, I hope to shed some light on what the late Neoplatonists were asserting when they asserted the harmony 
of Plato and Aristotle, in general or on some particular issue (here the immortality of soul); on why they were inclined to make such assertions o f harmony, and what they saw themselves as needing to do in order to defend them: and on why,in the process of defending them, they were led to conceptual clarifications which were in some cases of longstanding benefit to the conceptual stoic of philosophy. I  will point to a sur
prising case of such a conceptual benefit resulting from Neoplatonic interpretations of this Pimdtus passage and its parallels in the Timaeus. While my central example will be from Hermias, the themes I am interested in ate not peculiar to him, and I will also 
make use of other late Neoplatonic authors, especially Proclus. Hermias, and Produs, to recall, were both students of Syrianus;at one point in Hermias' commentary 'our companion Proclus' raises an aporia, and ‘the philosopher'— that is, ‘the professor — replies (92,6-10 Couvrcur), which seems to imply that the commentary in general was drawn by Hermias from Syrianus lectures. [Introduction, pp. 44 f.]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EgP6g0IaubwrLcL

Semence, vertu formatrice et intellect agent chez Nicolò Leoniceno entre la tradition arabo-latine et la renaissance des commentateurs grecs, 2007
By: Hiro, Harai

Title	Semence, vertu formatrice et intellect agent chez Nicolò Leoniceno entre la tradition arabo-latine et la renaissance des commentateurs grecs
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	Early Science and Medicine
Volume	12
Issue	2
Pages	134-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hiro, Harai
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The treatise On Formative Power (Venice, 1506) of Ferrara's emblematic medical humanist, Nicolo Leoniceno (1428-1524), is the one of the first embryological monographs of the Renaissance. It shows, at the same time, the continuity of medi eval Arabo-Latin tradition and the new elements brought by Renaissance medical humanism, namely through the use of the ancient Greek commentators of Aristotle like Simplicius. Thus this treatise stands at the crossroad of these two currents. The present study analyses the range of Leoniceno's philosophical discussion, determines its exact sources and brings to light premises for the early modern development of the concept of formative force, which will end up in the theory of "plastic nature" at the heart of the Scientific Revolution. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Bqb94gvDLPcl42S

Title	Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2022
Published in	Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum
Pages	517-526
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)	Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/47OwUW41KSmtjb0

Simplicius, 2020
By: Helmig, Christoph, Zalta, Edward N. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)	Zalta, Edward N.
Translator(s)

Simplicius’ commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),

Simplicius’ importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker.

Nineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels’ edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.

One of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius’ writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors—but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/simplicius/

Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic, 2023
By: Baltussen, Han, Muzala, Melina (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2023
Published in	Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception
Pages	441-456
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Muzala, Melina
Translator(s)

The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialectic which has been
under-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the
late Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480–c. 540 CE), in particular
his Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries.
I am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as
sketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous
work I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle’s methodology, emphasizing
the important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle’s claims
for a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh

Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance, 2001
By: Stone, Abraham D., Wisnovsky, Robert (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2001
Published in	Aspects of Avicenna
Pages	73-130
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Stone, Abraham D.
Editor(s)	Wisnovsky, Robert
Translator(s)

Both Avicenna and Simplicius, moreover, introduce terminology—“corporeal form,” “indeterminate dimensions,” “deviation”—that is neither Aristotelian nor even Plotinian. The conceptual radicalness can be summed up by saying that both of these solutions reduce corporeity, in the relevant sense, to something extremely abstract. Both refuse to identify it with any of the familiar and easily picturable properties of bodies (extension, volume, surface, three-dimensionality, rigidity, resistance, inertia, weight).

This resort to a high degree of conceptual abstraction and interpretative independence reflects both the extreme difficulty of the metaphysical problems and the strong pressure to achieve systematically maintainable solutions where such fundamental issues are at stake. The two solutions agree to a great extent in detail.

The abstract property with which both Simplicius and Avicenna wish to identify corporeity is divisibility or partibility: the potency or aptitude by which a material substance, one in actu, is at the same time potentially many. The difference between them is subtle. Avicenna thinks of corporeity, roughly speaking, as the kind of unity (ultimately: substantial unity) that possesses such divisibility. He therefore identifies corporeity with a certain substantial form.

Simplicius, on the other hand, thinks of corporeity as the privation by which an enmattered substantial form “deviates” from its intelligible archetype—i.e., by which it deviates from true unity and true being. He therefore identifies corporeity with matter.

Both solutions are relatively tenable within their own systematic contexts; neither, however, could likely survive transplantation to the other system. Simplicius’ solution ultimately relies on a full-blown Neoplatonic theory of emanation that Avicenna does not share, while Avicenna’s depends on his non-Neoplatonic views about essential and accidental properties and about the coexistence of multiple substantial forms in a single composite substance.
[conclusion p. 113-114]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GJWf1yj79pw3EdQ

Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή), 2018
By: Schwark, Marina

Title	Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2018
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	29
Pages	59
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Schwark, Marina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape  (μορφή) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius’ commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus’ assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus’ position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape.  Simplicius,  however,  suggests  that  his  claim  is  in  accord  with  Iamblichus’assumptions.  In  his  attempt  to  harmonize  the  ’constitution  thesis with  Iamblichus’theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of  σύλληψισς. He argues that shape  as  a common conjunction (κοινὴ σύλληψις)  includes, the other qualities  inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vLFTw1MUlOcJyPx

Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities, 2009
By: Côté, Antoine

Title	Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Vivarium
Volume	47
Issue	1
Pages	24-53
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Côté, Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The paper examines Simplicius's doctrine of propensities (epitedeioteis ) in his commen- 
tary on Aristotles Categories and follows its application by the late thirteenth century theologian and philosopher James of Viterbo to problems relating to the causes of 
volition, intellection and natural change. Although he uses Aristotelian terminology and means his doctrine to conflict minimally with those of Aristode, James s doctrine of propensities really constitutes an attempt to provide a technically rigorous dressing to his Augustinián and Boethian convictions. Central to Jamess procedure is his rejection, following Henry of Ghent, of the principle that "everything that is moved is moved by another". James uses Simplicius' doctrine of propensities as a means of extending the rejection of that principle, which Henry had limited to the case of the will, to cognitive operations and natural change. The result is a theory of cognition and volition that sees the soul as the principal cause of its own acts, and a theory of natural change that minimizes the causal impact of external agents. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/B1zH6E24s1mChA1

Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle, 2016
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Falcon, Andrea (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity
Pages	419-438
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Falcon, Andrea
Translator(s)

Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle’s philosophy.

Simplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.”

Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy

Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques, 2019
By: Baltussen, Han, Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	159-183
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

Simplicius’ exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and
his interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian’s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions – which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts
and authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of
handling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features
justify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius’ aim to annotate Aristotle’s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe

Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory , 2002
By: Bowen, Alan C.

Title	Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Perspectives on Science
Volume	10
Issue	2
Pages	155–167
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro-
duced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take
pains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later
writers in antiquity through a process of veriªcation. In this paper, I shall
apply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius’ interpretation
of Aristotle’s remarks in Meta . 8, which is the primary point of departure
for the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I ªrst sketch several
lines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius’ interpretation
should not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena
unknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then,
after showing that there is a fairly well deªned range of readings of Aris-
totle’s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in
the 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle’s report about
the Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius’
interpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of
early Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nWG5h8vz9dCXgZc

Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority, 2010
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Antiquorum Philosophial
Volume	3
Pages	121-136
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

That this was not always done by head-on confrontation may be explained by the historical situation he found himself in: firstly, he had to cope with an immensely learned and copious tradition, a task which he took on with considerable courage and resourcefulness; secondly, he was forced to choose a defensive line of argument with respect to the presentation of pagan philosophy in a world that had been taken over by Christianity. This circumstance contributed importantly to his predicament and the ensuing strategy. As I concluded in my summing up of his methodology: "In trying to defend the Platonist point of view in contradistinction to the Christian outlook, he uses polemic to persuade and refute, and comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytize."

The extent to which he is seen to dissent would need further confirmation, but the preliminary evidence suggests that it is in proportion to the difficult balancing act forced upon him by his historical position. Philosophically, he is a seventh-generation Platonist since Plotinus taught his new doctrine, and ideologically, he finds himself "surrounded" by an increasingly hostile world. Given the sheer amount of material canvassed and processed, it is a miracle he managed to express a personal view at all. As the works stand, he does so cautiously and judiciously. In his modus operandi, he comes close to the ideal commentator outlined in In Cat. 7.23–32, with the added bonus that he offers quotations to support his arguments.

A partial explanation for his "cautious" comments, offered as muted disagreement, could be that criticizing fellow Platonists too strongly might weaken one’s overall position. A final peculiarity also hints at his ability to take a more objective stance: Simplicius occasionally adopts a detached view of the Platonists, referring to them as "the Platonists do this or that," as if he were not to be counted among them. This coincides with his unusually comprehensive scope of source analysis, an approach which was bound to produce tensions and hence difficulties in presenting a unified picture of the philosophical tradition, whether it was meant to be Greek (a wide perspective) or Platonist (a narrow perspective).

It can be concluded, therefore, that respect for authority can go hand in hand with criticism and dissent in Simplicius, without jeopardizing the fundamental tenets of Platonism. [conclusion p. 133]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YpEQGyC0xI7815g

Simplicius de Cilicie, 2016
By: Goulet, Richard, Coda, Elisa, Goulet, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius de Cilicie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2016
Published in	Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos
Pages	341-394
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Goulet, Richard , Coda, Elisa
Editor(s)	Goulet, Richard
Translator(s)

Philosophe et commentateur néoplatonicien, disciple d’Ammonius à Alexandrie, puis de Damascius à Athènes.

La notice a été rédigée par Richard Goulet (informations biographiques et œuvres) et Elisa Coda (In De caelo et In Physica : Simplicius dans la tradition arabe). Par souci de cohérence, la numérotation des références propre à chacune de ces deux parties a été conservée.

Simplicius fait depuis quelques dizaines d’années l’objet de vifs débats. Des contributions importantes, faites notamment dans des colloques dont les actes n’ont pas encore été publiés, n’ont pu être prises en compte dans la présente notice. Mme I. Hadot, en collaboration avec Ph. Vallat, a rédigé une longue mise au point (de plus de 160 pages) sur l’ensemble des problèmes soulevés par Simplicius : il est apparu que cette importante contribution ne pouvait pas être publiée sous la forme d’une notice de ce dictionnaire et qu’il était préférable de la faire paraître ailleurs, dans son intégralité et sous son format originel.

Son riche contenu ne sera donc malheureusement pas pris en compte dans la rédaction de la présente notice. L’ouvrage est maintenant paru : Ilsetraut Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique. Avec deux contributions de Philippe Vallat, coll. « Academia Philosophical Studies » 48, Sankt Augustin, 2014, 309 p.

Des astérisques dans le texte annoncent des ajouts ponctuels dans les compléments du présent tome. [introduction p. 341]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0VMZHkLRvtbfenF

Simplicius et l'Infini, 2014
By: Soulier, Philippe

Title	Simplicius et l'Infini
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2014
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Les Belles Lettres
Series	Anagoge
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Soulier, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Comment penser la presence de l'infini dans la phenomenalite du monde fini? Comment articuler l'affirmation de la finitude du monde et celle de l'infinie puissance de son principe, en dehors de toute cosmogonie creationniste? Redige a la fin de l'Antiquite, le Commentaire a la Physique d'Aristote du au philosophe neoplatonicien Simplicius offre une reponse a ces questions. Il montre comment l'analyse du monde fini, tel qu'il est donne dans l'experience phenomenale, permet d'y decouvrir l'inscription d'une puissance d'un autre ordre. Il fait meme de la reconnaissance de cette puissance une condition d'acces a l'intelligibilite du devenir. Le present ouvrage propose une mise en perspective de l'histoire du probleme de l'infini (apeiron) dans la philosophie grecque antique, a travers l'etude de la mutation du sens et de la valeur accordes a ce concept dans le Commentaire de Simplicius (In Physicam, III, 4-8). Toutefois, ce texte n'est pas simplement situe comme un document d'etape. Certes, on y dechiffre le symptome d'un puissant mouvement historique de transition spirituelle: a partir d'un illimite negativement connote depuis le tournant parmenidien, celle-ci debouchera, par le relais de la philosophie medievale, sur l'idee moderne d'une infinite positive. Mais le passage de l'illimite a l'infini designe encore un mouvement anagogique interne a la demarche meme de l'exegese de Simplicius. De fait, la critique aristotelicienne du faux infini engendre par la representation y est interpretee comme une preparation a la celebration d'une infinite expressive de la puissance de l'Un, laquelle deploie sa fecondite depuis l'ordre intelligible jusqu'au devenir sublunaire. Appuyee sur des traductions inedites de textes de Simplicius, mais aussi de Jamblique, de Syrianus et de Proclus, cette enquete excede le seul spectre doctrinal du platonisme depuis Plotin. Outre le destin de pensees presocratiques comme celles d'Anaxagore et des Pythagoriciens, elle interroge egalement le statut problematique de la doctrine orale attribuee a Platon, le moyen platonisme, le pythagorisme hellenistique - et au premier chef la philosophie aristotelicienne elle-meme. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JrD8HJm6kzr3RyC

Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco, 2014
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Hoffmann, Philippe

Title	Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2014
Journal	Revue des Études Grecques
Volume	127
Issue	1
Pages	119-175
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The digression labelled “Corollarium de loco” by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (Commentaria  in Aristotelem  Graeca, IX, Berlin  1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio -  generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle’s definition of ‘place’ (topos) as “the first unmoved boundary 
of the surrounding body”  (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being ‘somewhere’, since it is not surrounded by  any  body that  would be  exterior to it.  Following the  steps of his  master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s definition with a new definition of place as a “gathering (or uniting) measure” (metron sunagôgon), which is one of the four “measures” (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible 
entities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per  se. Our understanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of 
Nature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina” (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy 
of Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani  graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the German scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian 
collection. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb

Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question, 2015
By: Bowen, Alan C., Holmes, Brooke (Ed.), Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2015
Published in	The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden
Pages	67-73
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)	Holmes, Brooke , Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich
Translator(s)

The debate in the sixth century between the Christian philosopher JohnPhiloponus and the Platonist philosopher Simplicius about whether the cosmos was created or eternal was of momentous importance not only to their understanding of the world and of the means to salvation from its trials but also to their views of what astronomical science was and how it should proceed in making its arguments. This brief chapter outlines this debate and then explores the main lines of attack to be taken in determining how Thomas Aquinas, who was supplied by William of Moerbeke with a translation of the text in which Simplicius responds to Philoponus, dealt with Simplicius’ reading of Aristotle in advancing a vigorous polemic against his Christian faith. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rIm87BQ2FbfPk81

Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste. Contribution à l’étude de l’exégèse néoplatonicienne, 2007
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine

Title	Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste. Contribution à l’étude de l’exégèse néoplatonicienne
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2007
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Klincksieck
Series	Etudes & commentaires
Volume	108
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Ce livre explore la methode et l'interpretation du Sophiste par Simplicius, en tant qu'elles illustrent l'exegese neoplatonicienne tardive et entrainent une restauration de la lettre du texte. A partir d'un corpus issu des commentaires (largement inedit en francais), Marc-Antoine Gavray reconstruit la lecture de Simplicius et la met en regard avec celles de Plotin, de Proclus et de Damascius. Il en ressort une exegese attentive, digne d'accompagner le lecteur moderne dans sa comprehension de Platon. [a.a]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/L6skhmRNm3vvMA0

Simplicius of Cilicia, 2011
By: Baltussen, Han, Gerson, Lloyd P. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius of Cilicia
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2011
Published in	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II
Pages	711-732
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Translator(s)

The expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian’s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480–560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30–9 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39–44/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event.

There has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a "philosopher-king," the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7).

Others have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu’s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment.

There are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the "divine Iamblichus" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PftkJOubxPYtz2C

Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter, 2018
By: Gabor, Gary, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Pages	569-579
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)

But I hope to have given some considerations as to why close attention to how Simplicius reads Plato repays the effort, and why the last Platonist of antiquity should be seen at least as an important partner in our interpretation of Plato today—as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5

Simplicius of Kilikia, 2008
By: Baltussen, Han, Keyser, Paul T. (Ed.), Irby-Massie, Georgia L. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius of Kilikia
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs
Pages	743-745
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L.
Translator(s)

He preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus’ summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers.

With Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the “return” to God.

In explicating Aristotle’s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle’s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality.

On scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle’s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called “supernatural.” Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle’s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination.

Simplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle’s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato’s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world.
Contributions to the Concepts of Time and Place

His most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus’ criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an “organism” with “members.” Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world’s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius’ idea that measure—a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit—determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12).

A second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time’s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being “above change” (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius’ solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought.

In his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle.
Possible Medical Writings

Some evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (“On Setting [Bones]”). [the entire text p. 743-745]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB

Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations, 2022
By: Menn, Stephen Philip

Title	Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	London; New York
Publisher	Bloomsbury Publishing
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen Philip
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

 Supporting the twelve volumes of translation of Simplicius' great commentary on Aristotle's Physics, all published by Bloomsbury in the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, between 1992 and 2021, this volume presents a general introduction to the commentary. It covers the philosophical aims of Simplicius' commentaries on the Physics and the related text On the Heaven; Simplicius' methods and his use of earlier sources; and key themes and comparison with Philoponus' commentary on the same text. Simplicius treats the Physics as a universal study of the principles of all natural things underlying the account of the cosmos in On the Heaven. In both treatises, he responds at every stage to the now lost Peripatetic commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which set Aristotle in opposition to Plato and to earlier thinkers such as Parmenides, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. On each passage, Simplicius after going through Alexander's commentary raises difficulties for the text of Aristotle as interpreted by Alexander. Then, after making observations about details of the text, and often going back to a direct reading of the older philosophers (for whom he is now often our main source, as he is for Alexander's commentary), he proposes his own solution to the difficulties, introduced with a modest 'perhaps', which reads Aristotle as in harmony with Plato and earlier thinkers. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kaEI6zadYuqduKC

Simplicius on Categories 1a16–17 and 1b25–27: An Examination of the Interests of Ancient and Modern Commentary on the Categories, 2014
By: Almeida, Joseph

Title	Simplicius on Categories 1a16–17 and 1b25–27: An Examination of the Interests of Ancient and Modern Commentary on the Categories
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume	4
Issue	2
Pages	73-99
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Almeida, Joseph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

We may gather these observations into several points.

First, Simplicius’s commentary on the Categories shows, not surprisingly, the influence of the great Neoplatonic spiritual odyssey of return to first principles. The final prayer offered at the termination of his commentary is a stunning testimony to the power which this spiritual program exerted on the ancient commentators:

"I stop my discourse, invoking the Guardians of the Logoi to grant me a more accurate understanding of these matters and to favor me with this understanding as a viaticum toward higher contemplations and to provide me leisure from the distractions of life."

For Simplicius, commentary on Aristotle could never be wholly separated from this overarching spiritual purpose. In at least one of the passages considered above, this influence manifested itself in an attempt to elucidate Aristotle’s text as the lesser mysteries on route to the higher. As this program and its consequences are central to the business of Neoplatonic commentary on the Categories, so it is, in its central impetus, irrelevant to the interests of the modern program of solving the problem of the Categories.

Second, Simplicius was a happy heir of a long tradition, part of which conditioned commentators to see the Categories as a text for beginners in philosophy. Embracing this teaching, Simplicius does not hesitate to deflect certain difficulties presented by the text with appeal to the elementary nature of the Categories, content to leave a real solution to more advanced speculations elsewhere. When modern interest is focused on just such a problem, such a treatment is of little value.

Third, the same tradition obligates Simplicius to harmonize Aristotle with Plato. At least in the example considered above, the reconciliation can involve certain abstruse points of Neoplatonic philosophy. Such commentary is no doubt of great value to students of Neoplatonism but will generally miss the mark set by the interests of modern inquiry.

These three points appear relatively secure and of universal application to the body of ancient commentary on the Categories. There is, however, a fourth point, to be stated cautiously because of the limited data examined. When Simplicius spoke directly to the passages in question in Cat. 1a16–17 and 1b25–27, he did not seem to appreciate the issues which interested modern readers of the Categories—namely, that the doctrine of simple expressions presents a philosophical theory in need of expansion and illumination, a problem to be solved in relation to a theory of categories in general rather than a solution to be applied to questions concerning the identity and nature of the Aristotelian categories in particular.

This is not to say that a modern reader will never find anywhere in Simplicius a discussion corresponding to his interest, but that in all likelihood it would be serendipitous and peripheral to Simplicius’s own primary interest in the Categories.

These observations warrant the conclusion that there is indeed a separation between the interests of the ancient and modern commentators on the Categories. In its strong form, the conclusion is that the separation is absolute. This is in accord with Praechter’s position in his classic review of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (i.e., that the commentaries will prove to be essentially of historic value):

“[They will be] invaluable for the history of the Greek language, for the lexicon as well as for the grammar”;
“[They will be invaluable] for understanding how ancient philosophy was able to fulfill the vast cultural mission which befell it in antiquity as sovereign in the realm of Weltanschauung, and in the Middle Ages as the ‘handmaiden of theology.’”

Even Sorabji, who seems to regard the independent philosophical value of the commentaries more highly than Praechter, recommends them to students of Aristotle with a note of caution:

“The distorting Neoplatonist context... does not prevent the commentaries from being incomparable guides to Aristotle. The commentators... have minutely detailed knowledge of the entire Aristotelian corpus... Moreover, commentators are enjoined neither to accept nor to reject what Aristotle says too readily, but to consider it in depth and without partiality. The commentaries draw one’s attention to hundreds of phrases, sentences, and ideas in Aristotle which one could easily have passed over... The scholar who makes the right allowance for the distorting context will learn far more about Aristotle than he would on his own.”

Although this is a more positive view of the substantive content of the commentaries, the illumination of sentences and ideas still does not address the needs of the kind of modern inquiry exemplified in our discussion.

Because the conclusion is drawn from limited data—namely, a close reading of about sixty pages of the Berlin text of Simplicius on the Categories—it must remain tentative and provisional. However, truth to be told, the tremendous effort involved in reading even cursorily just one of the ancient commentaries on the Categories, let alone with an eye to the intersection between Neoplatonic and modern interest, may leave the matter open for quite some time.
[conclusion p. 97-99]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OzmApALBY8ZdgnX

Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 , 2019
By: Sanchez, Liliana Carolina, Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Nejeschleba, Tomáš (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Pages	141-158
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sanchez, Liliana Carolina
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Nejeschleba, Tomáš
Translator(s)

The task of the Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle’s works, mostly in what has to do with dialectical passages, is usually “taken for granted instead of explained” (Baltussen 2008, 22). I’m borrowing these words employed by Han Baltussen in a different context to talk about the appreciation that the commentaries on the first book of the De Anima, in general, but ‘Simplicius’ in particular, have received from contemporary scholarship.

The reason I feel entitled to make such an amplification of the scope of Baltussen’s judgment has to do, in fact, with the traditional way in which the commentator’s exegetical effort is seen. Their role is often considered in light of their doctrinal commitment to Neoplatonic doctrine and, notably, with their “harmonization” project of Plato’s and Aristotle’s thought. Because of that, these readings are held to distort Aristotle’s philosophical aims more than explain them.

In the following lines, I aim to study one of those cases in which the exegetical labor of a Neoplatonic commentator is seen as carrying a doctrinal element that entails a certain distortion of Aristotle’s thought. The case that I propose to analyze is ‘Simplicius’’ commentary on the soul-harmony theory, for the commentator runs his interpretation with the aid of certain Neoplatonic theories that are alien to Aristotle’s thought.

My aim is to track how the hermeneutical device that the commentator applies to the Aristotelian text is built up from the elements provided in the text itself, how the foreign doctrine is introduced, and how this elicits a global comprehension and a philosophical appropriation of the text.

In order to do so, I will first present the passage and the alien theory that is being employed by ‘Simplicius’ to perform his exegesis; then, I will show how the commentator chains two passages of the text and produces an explanation for the refutation of the soul-harmony theory. Finally, I will describe what kind of interpretation is produced and how it serves to explain Aristotle’s challenge in using the hylomorphic model applied to psychology.

By doing this, I hope that I can explain how the commentator feels authorized to introduce the alien theory, how he builds up his exegesis around a problem that he needs to solve, and consequently, what the philosophical product of such an interpretation is.
[introduction p. 141-142]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tdfaeVFtEPFwy1s

Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25–161.20, 2024
By: Anna Afonasina

Title	Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25–161.20
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2024
Journal	Shagi/Steps
Volume	10
Issue	2
Pages	183-196
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Anna Afonasina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The present study attempts to show what influence a
commentary can have on the formation of ideas about a preceding
philosophical tradition. A case in point is Simplicius’ commentary
on Aristotle’s “Physics” and on fragments of Empedocles’ poem.
The selected passage, though small in size, is quite remarkable in
terms of content and the way Simplicius deals with it. With regard
to content, we are dealing here with one of the fundamental problematic
plots of Empedocles’ philosophy about the alternate rule of
Love and Strife. But Simplicius adds to this his own view of Empedocles’
philosophy, dictated by his desire to harmonize the views of
all the pagan philosophers and place them within a single consistent
scheme. Simplicius wanted to counterpose something to Christianity,
which was gaining in strength, and to show that all Greek
philosophy developed along a certain path and contains no internal
disagreements. On the one hand, Simplicius has preserved for us
very valuable material — fairly lengthy sections of the text of Empedocles’
poem. On the other hand, wishing to implement his program,
Simplicius chose those fragments of the poem that fit well
into it. Therefore, the question arises whether we should take into
account the context in which the fragments are quoted, or simply
extract from the general body of the commentary those fragments
of Empedocles’ poem that we need and consider them independently? [author's abstrac]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GQwsce7zWyeDLxe

Simplicius on Predication, 2015
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	Simplicius on Predication
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2015
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	33
Issue	2
Pages	173-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper deals with Simplicius’ discussion of Aristotle’s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle’s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius’ extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yxvHetwfUgsPb6f

Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs, 2012
By: Harari, Orna

Title	Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Volume	43
Pages	366-375
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Harari, Orna
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this study I examine the sole detailed evidence we have for Simplicius’ view of sign-based, i.e. tekmeriodic proofs, thereby questing the widespread assumption that he espouses Phiioponus' account of these proofs. Specifically. I argue that (1) it is more plausible to understand the signs on which Simplicius bases his tekmeriodic proofs as refutable, (2) he grounds the epistemic worth of these proofs in the evidential strength of their premises rather than in their validity, (3) unlike Phiioponus, he conceives of the argument that leads to the principles of natural  philosophy, which tekmeriodic proofs are aimed to prove, as inductive, and  (4) he evaluates these proofs against Plato’s  un-hypothetical  science, hence denying natural  philosophy  the  autonomy  from  metaphysics  that  Phiioponus’  account  of tekmeriodic  proofs grants. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kTidRDQtummkQxv

Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?, 2015
By: Baltussen, Han, Marmodoro, Anna (Ed.), Prince, Brian (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2015
Published in	Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity
Pages	111-128
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian
Translator(s)

My aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius’ technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius’ own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle’s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle’s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle’s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius’ own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered—the different ‘sources,’ so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/g1SyUqDyUcBATre

Simplicius on the "Theaetetus" ("In Physica" 17,38-18,23 Diels), 2010
By: Menn, Stephen

Title	Simplicius on the "Theaetetus" ("In Physica" 17,38-18,23 Diels)
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2010
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	55
Issue	3
Pages	255-270
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Aristotle in Physics 1,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate "cognition according to the definition and through the elements," and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is ἐπιστήμη. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for ἐπιστήμη and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to recon struct Simplicius' reading of "Socrates' Dream," its place in the Theaetetus larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dEWYys9PQqr0WtF

Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances, 2019
By: Schwark, Marina

Title	Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2019
Journal	Elenchos
Volume	40
Issue	2
Pages	401-429
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Schwark, Marina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form ‘universal,’it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species–form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius’ commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating
accidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual’s form coordinates the individual’s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter–form compound can
assume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory
of individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual’s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cpvCFatZj4VcLdC

Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32), 2004
By: O’Meara, Dominic J., Gannagé, Emma (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003
Pages	89-98
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	O’Meara, Dominic J.
Editor(s)	Gannagé, Emma
Translator(s)

The purpose of this paper is to propose some discussion of a passage in which a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the first half of the sixth century A. D. speaks of the function of the philosopher in political  and  social  life. The Neoplatonist is Simplicius and the passage is found in chapter 32 of his commentary on the Manual 
of Epictetus. The date of this commentary is uncertain, but it has been argued that Simplicius refers in it to the anti-pagan measures taken by the Emperor Justinian in 529 which put an end to the activities of the Neoplatonist school at Athens and led to the exile in Persia of the school’s head, Damascius, accompanied by his pupil Simplicius and by other philosophers. My translation, given below (II), of the passage in Simplicius’ commentary is preceded (I) by some indications concerning the context in which the passage occurs and will be followed  (III) by comments on themes present in the passage. [introduction, p. 89]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q9F64Dfl9UaGBE7

Simplicius on the Planets and their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy, 2013
By: Bowen, Alan C.

Title	Simplicius on the Planets and their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	Leiden
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia Antiqua
Volume	133
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Though the digression closing Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo 2.12 has long been misread as a history of early Greek planetary theory, it is in fact a creative reading of Aristotle to maintain the authority of the De caelo as a sacred text in Late Platonism and to refute the polemic mounted by the Christian, John Philoponus. This book shows that the critical question forced on Simplicius was whether his school’s acceptance of Ptolemy’s planetary hypotheses entailed a rejection of Aristotle’s argument that the heavens are made of a special matter that moves by nature in a circle about the center of the cosmos and, thus, a repudiation of the thesis that the cosmos is uncreated and everlasting.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j5dIQfTR7cyHeCV

Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3, 2019
By: Mouzala, Melina G.

Title	Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2019
Journal	Analogia
Volume	7
Issue	Byzantine Aristotle
Pages	43-82
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mouzala, Melina G.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

At the beginning of his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics II.2, Simplicius attempts to reveal the principal meaning of physis, that which in his view is preeminent above all others presented by Aristotle in Physics II.1. Through the arguments he uses to show what the principal meaning of physis is, we are also able to better understand the other meanings. These other meanings are, on the one hand, those which are discovered in the light of Simplicius’ insightful reading of it. Simplicius appears to recognize—or at least to be conscious of the fact—that this part of his Commentary constitutes an autonomous analysis and explanation of the different meanings of physis, which sets out to reveal its concealed principal meaning.

My aim in this paper is to show that in his comments on Physics II.1, Simplicius is trying to offer an exegesis of the Aristotelian arguments, while in his comments regarding the beginning of Physics II.2, he proceeds to a bold reading of what Aristotle has said in chapter one. He does this by giving his own interpretation of the meaning of physis, within the frame which Aristotle had already sketched out in the previous chapter, but also by deviating to some extent from Aristotle. For Simplicius, the principal, albeit concealed, meaning of physis, within the Aristotelian philosophical framework, lies in the idea that nature is a sort of propensity for being moved and a sort of life, to wit, the lowest sort of life (eschatê zôê). [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BnCCI5k1m32XM47

Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change, 2009
By: Harari, Orna, Brad Inwood (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2009
Published in	Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Pages	245-274
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Harari, Orna
Editor(s)	Brad Inwood
Translator(s)

In the opening paragraph of his discussion of relatives in Categories 7, Aristotle presents two lists of examples; the first contains greater and double, the second contains states, conditions, perception, knowledge, and position (6a38-b3). Although Aristotle does not explicitly distinguish these lists, they seem to exemplify two different notions of relatives. The first list seems to contain relational attributes whose bearers possess them merely due to their mutual dependence, whereas the second list seems to contain attributes which, in addition to arising from their bearers’ mutual dependence, are internal qualitative states thereof.

Corresponding to this distinction, Plotinus in Ennead 6.1.9 distinguishes two types of relational attributes: those that come about by participation and those that result from an activity. In so doing, he associates Aristotle’s account of relatives with the question of the reality of relations, which does not appear in Categories 7 but arises from the Stoic notion of relatives. Consequently, Plotinus’ distinction of these types of relatives leads to two different accounts of the reality of relations.

The first account, in which relational attributes are acquired by participation, secures the reality of relations by preventing their reduction to their substrates. By this account, relational attributes are not mere dispositions of their substrates, as the Stoics hold, but exist over and above their substrates. The second account, in which relational attributes are activities of their substrates, secures the reality of relations by grounding them in the inner nature of their substrates. It thereby confronts the contention found in Aristotle’s Metaphysics N 1 (1088u29-35) and in Sextus Empiricus (M. 8.455-8) that relational attributes are ontologically inferior because their substrates do not undergo an intrinsic change when they acquire and lose their relational attributes.

Plotinus’ Ennead 6.1.6-9 leaves this dilemma unsettled. On the one hand, he considers active relations less problematic than relations by participation (6.1.6.13-18); on the other hand, he argues that the unity of the category of relatives is secured if relations are considered to be forms acquired by participation (6.1.9.25-7).

How to distinguish relations from their relata without jeopardizing the subject-attribute scheme remains an open question. In substantiating my interpretation, I analyze in the first section Simplicius’ and the other late commentators’ discussions of the reality of relations. I show that Simplicius’ discussion gives rise to the formulation of a precise distinction between relations and their substrates, whereas the other late commentators stress the dependence of relations on their substrates.

In the second section, I turn to Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic distinction between relatives and relatively disposed attributes, showing that, despite the distinction between relations and their substrates, Simplicius follows the other commentators in stressing the dependence of relational attributes on the inner nature of their substrates.

In light of these conclusions, in the third section I seek to show how Simplicius succeeds in accommodating the distinction between relations and their substrates with his view that relations depend on their substrates. Here, I analyze Simplicius’ discussion of relational change and show that it facilitates the integration of these two accounts and that it underlies the notion of inclination.

In conclusion, I show that Simplicius’ conception of relations originates in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and in Damascius’ account of the relation between the higher and lower grades of reality in Neoplatonic metaphysics. This discussion lends further support to my attempt to articulate the notion of inclination and offers a possible explanation of Simplicius’ motivation for deviating from the stance of the other late commentators. [introduction p. 245-248]

Online Resources

Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified, 2016
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Méthexis
Volume	28
Pages	111-140
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle’s  Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same commentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius'  notion of natural priority and to  investigate the  extent to which the assumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DTcssHAheWWZmpg

Simplicius on the Void, 2020
By: Nikulin, Dmitri, Horn, Christoph (Ed.), Taormina, Daniela Patrizia (Ed.), Walter, Denis (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius on the Void
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica
Pages	231-255
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Nikulin, Dmitri
Editor(s)	Horn, Christoph , Taormina, Daniela Patrizia , Walter, Denis
Translator(s)

The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius’ Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle’s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle’s  arguments,  which  abound  in  subtle  observations,  Simplicius  comes  up with several original interpretations regarding the nature of the negativity attributed  to  the  void,  demonstrating  the  impossible consequences  of  its  acceptance.  Following Aristotle, Simplicius distinguishes two kinds of the void, that between and outside bodies, and that interspersed with bodies. Locomotion through the void as an imputed place of motion is impossible, because there is no sufficient reason either for motion in a particular direction or for rest, since the void in its negativity allows for no distinctions, and thus for no natural places. A number of absurdities also follow from the acceptance of the void as scattered in bodies. The void is therefore out of place in the cosmos ontologically, mathematically, and physically. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX

Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study, 2002
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume	55
Issue	2
Pages	159–199
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BFVk6vhtz2ul08p

Simplicius the Neoplatonist in light of contemporary research: a critical review, 2020
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut,

Title	Simplicius the Neoplatonist in light of contemporary research: a critical review
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2020
Publication Place	Baden-Baden
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Series	Academia Philosophical Studies, 67
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Drummond , Ian()

This book, translated from the French, offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires.

His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning.

The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [autor's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DcBrrXbvDC3iJTF

Simplicius ’ Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West, 2008
By: Michael Chase, Lloyd A. Newton (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius ’ Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories
Pages	9-30
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Michael Chase
Editor(s)	Lloyd A. Newton
Translator(s)

Michael Chase begins the volume by demonstrating the importance
of Simplicius ’ commentary for two key medieval thinkers, Aquinas
and al Fārābī. Due in part to Simplicius’ infl uence, and particularly his commentary on the Categories, both fi gures adopt the Neoplatonic
project of reconciling Plato and Aristotle, in spite of the apparent differences
between them. Interestingly, though, while both al-Fārābī and
Aquinas ultimately agree on the harmony between Plato and Aristotle,
they differ in that Aquinas follows Iamblichus, who makes philosophy
subordinate to theology, while al-Fārābī follows Porphyry, who views
philosophy as alone suffi cient for beatitude. [Introduction, by Newton]

Online Resources

Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d’Epictète. I : Chapitres I–XXIX, 2001
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d’Epictète. I : Chapitres I–XXIX
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2001
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Les Belles Lettres
Series	Collection des universités de France: Série grecque
Volume	411
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iMCK5bee0rBbYff

Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Traité du ciel d'Aristote (In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke, 2004
By: Simplicius, Bossier, Fernand (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Traité du ciel d'Aristote (In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2004
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	Leuven University Press
Series	Corpus Latinum commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum
Volume	8
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Bossier, Fernand
Translator(s)	von Moerbeke, Wilhelm(von Moerbeke, Wilhelm) ,

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aIBKcwHm8NsOefI

Simplicius, Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote. Livre ii, ch. 1-3. Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould, 2019
By: Simplicius, Lernould, Alain (Ed.),

Title	Simplicius, Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote. Livre ii, ch. 1-3. Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2019
Publication Place	Villeneuve d'Ascq
Publisher	Presses universitaires du Septentrion
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)	Lernould, Alain
Translator(s)	Lernould, Alain(Lernould, Alain)

Le Livre ii de la Physique d’Aristote est une « véritable introduction à la philosophie de la nature » (Mansion). Après avoir dans le chapitre 1 donné sa fameuse définition de la nature comme « principe et cause de mouvement et de repos pour la chose en laquelle elle réside à titre premier par soi et non par accident », le Stagirite dans le chapitre 2 traite de la différence entre mathématiques et physique. Le chapitre 3, qui constitue « l’exposé le plus complet de l’étiologie aristotélicienne » (Crubellier-Pellegrin), livre la doctrine des quatre causes. Les chapitres 4 à 6 portent sur le hasard et la spontanéité. Dans le chapitre 8 est défendue la thèse du finalisme dans la nature et le chapitre 9 établit la distinction entre nécessité absolue et nécessité hypothétique.
Simplicius de Cilicie, le dernier philosophe de l’École néoplatonicienne d’Athènes, a rédigé son commentaire sur la Physique vers 540, après son exil temporaire chez le roi de Perse Chosroès, et le commentaire au seul Livre ii de la Phusikê Akroasis d’Aristote constitue une somme de la philosophie de la nature de l’Antiquité tardive. Il n’existe pas à ce jour de traduction française intégrale du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique.
Le présent volume contient la traduction annotée du commentaire au Livre ii, chap. 1-3, accompagnée par un résumé analytique du commentaire à Phys. ii, 1-3, la liste des modifications apportées aux texte grec établi par Diels (1882), un index des termes grecs, un index des noms anciens, une bibliographie. Il sera suivi de deux autres qui contiendront la traduction du commentaire aux, respectivement, chapitres 4-6 et 7-9 du Livre ii de la Physique. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3MfXV87nCOjNogF

Simplicius, Corollaries on place and time, 2013
By: Simplicius, Cilicius, Urmson, L., James O. (Ed.), Siorvanes, Lucas (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, Corollaries on place and time
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)	Urmson, L., James O. , Siorvanes, Lucas
Translator(s)	Urmson, L., James O.(Urmson, James O.) , Siorvanes, Lucas(Siorvanes, Lucas) ,

Is there such a thing as three-dimensional space? Is space inert or dynamic? Is the division of time into past, present and future real? Does the whole of time exist all at once? Does it progress smoothly or by discontinuous leaps?
Simplicius surveys ideas about place and time from the preceding thousand years of Greek Philosophy and reveals the extraordinary ingenuity of the late Neoplatonist theories, which he regards as marking a substantial advance on all previous ideas.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XcqDgDAa6w30tGz

Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4, 2011
By: Simplicius Cilicius, Huby, Pamela M. (Ed.), Taylor, Christopher C. W. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius Cilicius
Editor(s)	Huby, Pamela M. , Taylor, Christopher C. W.
Translator(s)	Huby, Pamela M.(Huby, Pamela M.) , Taylor, Christopher C. W.(Taylor, Christopher C. W.) ,

In this volume Simplicius deals with Aristotle's account of the Presocratics, and for many of them he is our chief or even sole authority. He quotes at length from Melissus, Parmenides and Zeno, sometimes from their original works but also from later writers from Plato onwards, drawing particularly on Alexander's lost commentary on Aristotle's Physics and on Porphyry. Much of his approach is just scholarly, but in places he reveals his Neoplatonist affiliation and attempts to show the basic agreement among his predecessors in spite of their apparent differences.

This volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary, and includes a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6GpvV97ruLyfIbX

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 1–4’, 2003
By: Chase, Michael (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 1–4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2003
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Chase, Michael
Translator(s)	Chase, Michael(Chase, Michael ) ,

Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the most comprehensive philosophical critique of the work ever written, representing 600 years of criticism. In his Categories, Aristotle divides what exists in the sensible world into ten categories of Substance, Quantity, Relative, Quality and so on. Simplicius starts with a survey of previous commentators, and an introductory set of questions about Aristotle's philosophy and about the Categories in particular. The commentator, he says, needs to present Plato and Aristotle as in harmony on most things. Why are precisely ten categories named, given that Plato did with fewer distinctions? We have a survey of views on this. And where in the scheme of categories would one fit a quality that defines a substance - under substance or under quality? In his own commentary, Porphyry suggested classifying a defining quality as something distinct, a substantial quality, but others objected that this would constitute an eleventh. The most persistent question dealt with here is whether the categories classify words, concepts, or things. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cfS7TDdDAkqTAAq

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’, 2001
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de (Ed.), Fleet, Barrie (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2001
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de , Fleet, Barrie
Translator(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de(de Haas, Frans A. J.) , Fleet, Barrie(Fleet, Barrie) ,

Chapters 5 and 6 of Aristotle's Categories describe his first two categories, Substance and Quantity. It is usually taken that Plotinus attacked Aristotle's Categories, but that Porphyry and Iamblichus restored it to the curriculum once and for all. Nonetheless, the introduction to this text stresses how much of the defence of Aristotle Porphyry was able to draw out of Plotinus' critical discussion. Simplicius' commentary is our most comprehensive account of the debate on the validity of Aristotle's Categories. One subject discussed by Simplicius in these chapters is where the differentia of a species (eg the rationality of humans) fits into the scheme of categories. Another is why Aristotle elevates the category of Quantity to second place, above the category of Quality. Further, de Haas shows how Simplicius distinguishes different kinds of universal order to solve some of the problems. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/w7oLwHhAgbvNtH9

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.1-4’, 2014
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.1-4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bristol Classical Press
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hankinson, R. J.(Hankinson, Robert J.) ,

In chapter 1 of On the Heavens Aristotle defines body, and then notoriously ruptures dynamics by introducing a fifth element, beyond Plato's four, to explain the rotation of the heavens, which, like nearly all Greeks, Aristotle took to be real, not apparent. Even a member of his school, Xenarchus, we are told, rejected his fifth element. The Neoplatonist Simplicius seeks to harmonise Plato and Aristotle. Plato, he says, thought that the heavens were composed of all four elements but with the purest kind of fire, namely light, predominating. That Plato would not mind this being called a fifth element is shown by his associating with the heavens the fifth of the five convex regular solids recognised by geometry.
Simplicius follows Aristotle's view that one of the lower elements, fire, also rotates, as shown by the behaviour of comets. But such motion, though natural for the fifth elements, is super-natural for fire. Simplicius reveals that the Aristotelian Alexander of Aphrodisias recognised the need to supplement Aristotle and account for the annual approach and retreat of planets by means of Ptolemy's epicycles or eccentrics.
Aristotle's philosopher-god is turned by Simplicius, following his teacher Ammonius, into a creator-god, like Plato's. But the creation is beginningless, as shown by the argument that, if you try to imagine a time when it began, you cannot answer the question, 'Why not sooner?' In explaining the creation, Simplicius follows the Neoplatonist expansion of Aristotle's four 'causes' to six. The final result gives us a cosmology very considerably removed from Aristotle's. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dj0TQS2KoG08Skq

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.10-12’, 2006
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.10-12’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hankinson, R. J.(Hankinson, Robert J.) ,

Here is a battle royal between the Neoplatonist Simplicius and the Aristotelian Alexander on the origins, if any, of the universe. A parallel battle had already been conducted by Philoponus and Proclus, arguing that Plato's "Timaeus" gives a beginning to the universe. Simplicius denies this.
In the three chapters of On the Heavens dealt with in this volume, Aristotle argues that the universe is ungenerated and indestructible. In Simplicius' commentary, translated here, we see a battle royal between the Neoplatonist Simplicius and the Aristotelian Alexander, whose lost commentary on Aristotle's On the Heavens Simplicius partly preserves. Simplicius' rival, the Christian Philoponus, had conducted a parallel battle in his Against Proclus but had taken the side of Alexander against Proclus and other Platonists, arguing that Plato's Timaeus gives a beginning to the universe. Simplicius takes the Platonist side, denying that Plato intended a beginning. The origin to which Plato refers is, according to Simplicius, not a temporal origin, but the divine cause that produces the world without beginning. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nf0tApGwuiAkDmf

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.2–3’, 2011
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.2–3’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

One of the arguments in Aristotle's On the Heavens propounds that the world neither came to be nor will perish. This volume contains the pagan Neoplatonist Simplicius of Cilicia's commentary on the first part of this this important work. The commentary is notable and unusual because Simplicius includes in his discussion lengthy representations of the Christian John Philoponus' criticisms of Aristotle along with his own, frequently sarcastic, responses.

This is the first complete translation into a modern language of Simplicius' commentary, and is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rY9ULws8UGvf5gU

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.3–4’, 2011
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.3–4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

This is the first English translation of Simplicius' responses to Philoponus' Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World. The commentary is published in two volumes: Ian Mueller's previous book in the series, Simplicius: On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3, and this book on 1.3-4.

Philoponus, the Christian, had argued that Aristotle's arguments do not succeed. For all they show to the contrary, Christianity may be right that the heavens were brought into existence by the only divine being and one moment in time, and will cease to exist at some future moment. Simplicius upholds the pagan view that the heavens are eternal and divine, and argues that their eternity is shown by their astronomical movements coupled with certain principles of Aristotle.

The English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tNzmkPu2sTOT3n5

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.5-9’, 2004
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.5-9’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hankinson, R. J.(Hankinson, Robert J.) ,

A discourse between Simplicius and Aristotle on whether there is more than one physical world and whether the universe exists beyond the outermost stars. Here, Simplicius tells of the different theories of acceleration in Greek philosophy.
Aristotle argues in On the Heavens 1.5-7 that there can be no infinitely large body, and in 1.8-9 that there cannot be more than one physical world. As a corollary in 1.9, he infers that there is no place, vacuum or time beyond the outermost stars. As one argument in favour of a single world, he argues that his four elements: earth, air, fire and water, have only one natural destination apiece. Moreover they accelerate as they approach it and acceleration cannot be unlimited. However, the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who wrote the commentary in the sixth century AD (here translated into English), tells us that this whole world view was to be rejected by Strato, the third head of Aristotle's school. At the same time, he tells us the different theories of acceleration in Greek philosophy. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6Ua20q85giOX0BF

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.10–14’, 2005
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.10–14’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Aristotle believed that the outermost stars are carried round us on a transparent sphere. There are directions in the universe and a preferred direction of rotation. The sun, moon and planets are carried on different revolving spheres. The spheres and celestial bodies are composed of an everlasting fifth element, which has none of the ordinary contrary properties like heat and cold which could destroy it, but only the facility for uniform rotation. But this creates problems as to how the heavenly bodies create light, and, in the case of the sun, heat. The topics covered in this part of Simplicius' commentary are: the speeds and distances of the stars; that the stars are spherical; why the sun and moon have fewer motions than the other five planets; why the sphere of the fixed stars contains so many stars whereas the other heavenly spheres contain no more than one (Simplicius has a long excursus on planetary theory in his commentary on this chapter); discussion of people's views on the position, motion or rest, shape, and size of the earth; that the earth is a relatively small sphere at rest in the centre of the cosmos. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1psbLZBEMCHX0LV

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.1–9’, 2004
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 2.1–9’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Durckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Aristotle believed that the outermost stars are carried round us on a transparent sphere. There are directions in the universe and a preferred direction of rotation. The sun moon and planets are carried on different revolving spheres. The spheres and celestial bodies are composed of an everlasting fifth element, which has none of the ordinary contrary properties like heat and cold which could destroy it, but only the facility for uniform rotation. But this creates problems as to how the heavenly bodies create light, and, in the case of the sun, heat. The value of Simplicius' commentary on On the Heavens 2,1-9 lies both in its preservation of the lost comments of Alexander and in Simplicius' controversy with him. The two of them discuss not only the problem mentioned, but also whether soul and nature move the spheres as two distinct forces or as one. Alexander appears to have simplified Aristotle's system of 55 spheres down to seven, and some hints may be gleaned as to whether, simplifying further, he thinks there are seven ultimate movers, or only one. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RgaRgqo4soBSmOr

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.1-7’, 2009
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.1-7’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

The subject of Aristotle's On the Heavens, Books 3-4, is the four elements of earth, air, fire and water, which exist below the heavens. Book 3, in chapters 1 to 7, frequently criticizes the Presocratic philosophers. Because of this, Simplicius' commentary is one of our main sources of quotations of the Presocratics. Ian Mueller's translation of this commentary gains added importance by enabling us to see the context which guided Simplicius' selection of Presocratic texts to quote. Simplicius also criticizes the lost commentary of the leading Aristotelian commentator, Alexander, and thereby gives us important information about that work. The English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Tp4gKVaseyADwcc

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.7-4.6’, 2009
By: Simplicius , Mueller, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 3.7-4.6’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Commenting on the end of Aristotle's On the Heavens Book 3, Simplicius examines Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's theory of elemental chemistry in the Timaeus. Plato makes the characteristics of the four elements depend on the shapes of component corpuscles and ultimately on the arrangement of the triangles which compose them. Simplicius preserves and criticizes the contributions made to the debate in lost works by two other major commentators, Alexander the Aristotelian, and Proclus the Platonist.

In Book 4, Simplicius identifies fifteen objections by Aristotle to Plato's views on weight in the four elements. He finishes Book 4 by elaborating Aristotle's criticisms of Democritus' theory of weight in the atoms, including Democritus' suggestions about the influence of atomic shape on certain atomic motions.

This volume includes an English translation of Simplicius' commentary, a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9DVMcEiwlRjT1eG

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Soul 1.1-2.4’, 2013
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Soul 1.1-2.4’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Urmson, J. O.(Urmson, James O.) , Lautner, P.(Lautner, Peter) ,

The commentary attributed to Simplicius on Aristotle's On the Soul appears in this series in three volumes, of which this is the first. The translation provides the first opportunity for a wider readership to assess the disputed question of authorship. Is the work by Simplicius, or by his colleague Priscian, or by another commentator? In the second volume, Priscian's Paraphrase of Theophrastus on Sense Perception, which covers the same subject, will also be translated for comparison.
Whatever its authorship, the commentary is a major source for late Neoplatonist theories of thought and sense perception and provides considerable insight into this important area of Aristotle's thought. In this first volume, the Neoplatonist commentator covers the first half of Aristotle's On the Soul, comprising Aristotle's survey of his predecessors and his own rival account of the nature of the soul. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WG1WMmw3qeawVVc

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 1.5–9’, 2012
By: Simplicius , Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Atkinson, Michael (Ed.), Share, Michael (Ed.), Mueller, Ian (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 1.5–9’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Baltussen, Han , Atkinson, Michael , Share, Michael , Mueller, Ian
Translator(s)	Baltussen, Han(Baltussen, Han) , Atkinson, M.(Atkinson, Michael ) , Share, Michael (Share, Michael ) , Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,

Simplicius' greatest contribution in his commentary on Aristotle on Physics 1.5-9 lies in his treatment of matter. The sixth-century philosopher starts with a valuable elucidation of what Aristotle means by 'principle' and 'element' in Physics. Simplicius' own conception of matter is of a quantity that is utterly diffuse because of its extreme distance from its source, the Neoplatonic One, and he tries to find this conception both in Plato's account of space and in a stray remark of Aristotle's. Finally, Simplicius rejects the Manichaean view that matter is evil and answers a Christian objection that to make matter imperishable is to put it on a level with God. This is the first translation of Simplicius' important work into English. [official abstact]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Pv4w4aOCf88Ez2l

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 3’, 2002
By: Simplicius, Cilicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 3’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius, Cilicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Urmson, J. O.(Urmson, James O.) , Lautner, P.(Lautner, Peter) ,

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3NicGfYii3TzfK7

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’, 2012
By: Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2012
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Bodnár, István M.(Bodnár, István M.) , Chase, Michael(Chase, Michael ) , Share, Michael (Share, Michael ) ,

In this commentary on Aristotle Physics book eight, chapters one to five, the sixth-century philosopher Simplicius quotes and explains important fragments of the Presocratic philosophers, provides the fragments of his Christian opponent Philoponus' Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, and makes extensive use of the lost commentary of Aristotle's leading defender, Alexander of Aphrodisias.

This volume contains an English translation of Simplicius' important commentary, as well as a detailed introduction, explanatory notes and a bibliography.  [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LJFtY7RnI5jMqhW

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.6–10’, 2001
By: Simplicius , McKirahan, Richard D. (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.6–10’
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2001
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	McKirahan, Richard D.
Translator(s)	McKirahan, Richard D.(McKirahan, Richard D.) ,

Aristotle's Physics is about the causes of motion and culminates in a proof that God is needed as the ultimate cause of motion. Aristotle argues that things in motion need to be moved by something other than themselves - he rejects Plato's self-movers. On pain of regress, there must be an unmoved mover. If this unmoved mover is to cause motion eternally, it needs infinite power. It cannot, then, be a body, since bodies, being of finite size, cannot house infinite power. The unmoved mover is therefore an incorporeal God. Simplicius reveals that his teacher, Ammonius, harmonised Aristotle with Plato to counter Christian charges of pagan disagreement, by making Aristotle's God a cause of beginningless movement, but of beginningless existence of the universe. Eternal existence, not less than eternal motion, calls for an infinite, and hence incorporeal, force. By an irony, this anti-Christian interpretation turned Aristotle's God from a thinker into a certain kind of Creator, and so helped to make Aristotle's God acceptable to St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. This text provides a translation of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's work. [offical abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/T8coa6uOHoikcaC

Simplicius, On Aristotle's Categories 9-15, 2013
By: Simplicius, Gaskin, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, On Aristotle's Categories 9-15
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2013
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Gaskin, Richard
Translator(s)	Gaskin, Richard(Gaskin, Richard ) ,

Aristotle classified the things in the world into ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relative, etc. Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, attacked the classification, accepting only these first four categories, rejecting the other six, and adding one of this own: change. He preferred Plato’s classification into five kinds which included change.

In this part of his commentary, Simplicius records the controversy on the six categories which Plotinus rejected: acting, being acted upon, being in a position, when, where, and having on. Plotinus’ pupil and editor, Porphyry, defended all six categories as applicable to the physical world, even if not to the world of Platonic Forms to which Platonist studies must eventually progress. Porphyry’s pupil, lamblichus, went further: taken in a suitable sense, Aristotle’s categories apply also to the world of Forms, although they require Pythagorean reinterpretation. Simplicius may be closer to Porphyry that to lamblichus, and indeed Porphyry’s defence established Aristotle’s categories once and for all in Western thought. But the probing controversy of this period none the less revealed more effectively than any discussion of modern times the profound difficulties in Aristotle’s categorical scheme. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OOD3JZhq2VbNbHJ

Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 1–26, 2002
By: Brennan, Tad (Ed.), Brittain, Charles (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 1–26
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Brennan, Tad , Brittain, Charles
Translator(s)	Brennan, Tad(Brennan, Tad) , Brittain, Charles(Brittain, Charles) ,

[Simplicius'] moral interpretation of Epictetus is preserved in the library of nations, as a classic book, most excellently adapted to direct the will, to purify the heart, and to confirm the understanding, by a just confidence in the nature both of God and man.'
Edward Gibbon

'This book, written by a "pagan" philosopher, makes the most Christian impression conceivable. The betrayal of all reality through morality is here present in its fullest splendour - pitiful psychology, the philosopher is reduced to a country parson. And Plato is to blame for all of it! He remains Europe's greatest misfortune!'
Fredrich Nietzsche

Of these two rival reactions the favourable one was most common. Epictetus' Handbook on ethics was used in Christian monasteries, and Simplicius' commentary on it was widely available up to the nineteenth century.
The commentary gives us a fascinating chance to see how a pagan Neoplatonist transformed Stoic ideas, adding Neoplatonist accounts of theology, theodicy, providence, free will and the problem of evil.
This translation of the Commentary on the Handbook is published in two volumes. This is the first, covering chapters 1-26; the second covers chapters 27-53. [offical abstact]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mbLTAePveC0nKEm

Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 27–53, 2002
By: Brennan, Tad (Ed.), Brittain, Charles (Ed.), Simplicius

Title	Simplicius, On Epictetus’ Handbook 27–53
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Series	Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)	Brennan, Tad , Brittain, Charles
Translator(s)	Brennan, Tad(Brennan, Tad) , Brittain, Charles(Brittain, Charles) ,

The Enchiridion or Handbook of the first-century Ad Stoic Epictetus was used as an ethical treatise both in Christian monasteries and by the sixth-century pagan Neoplatonist Simplicius. Simplicius chose it for beginners, rather than Aristotle's Ethics, because it presupposed no knowledge of logic. We thus get a fascinating chance to see how a pagan Neoplatonist transformed Stoic ideas. The text was relevant to Simplicius because he too, like Epictetus, was teaching beginners how to take the first steps towards eradicating emotion, although he is unlike Epictetus in thinking that they should give up public life rather than acquiesce, if public office is denied them. Simplicius starts from a Platonic definition of the person as rational soul, not body, ignoring Epictetus' further whittling down of himself to just his will or policy decisions. He selects certain topics for special attention in chapters 1, 8, 27 and 31. Things are up to us, despite Fate. Our sufferings are not evil, but providential attempts to turn us from the body. Evil is found only in the human soul. But evil is parasitic (Proclus' term) on good. The gods exist, are provident, and cannot be bought off.With nearly all of this the Stoics would agree, but for quite different reasons, and their own distinctions and definitions are to a large extent ignored. This translation of the Handbook is published in two volumes. This is the second volume, covering chapters 27-53; the first covers chapters 1-26. [offical abstact]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2rHivWnOIN8JwX2

Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers, 2019
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	69-99
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QL5VZHREOe1cXap

Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient, 2004
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut

Title	Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2004
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	147
Issue	3/4
Pages	408-420
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In the first place, the survey  of  the  commentaries  on  the  Categories with  which  Simplicius  provides  us,  as  well  as  the  examination  undertaken  by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus’ commentaries on Plato’s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly,  an  attentive  comparison  between  those  Neoplatonic  commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a  genuine  doctrinal  continuity  existed  from  Porphyry  to  Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus’ attitude,  which  he  manifests  in  the  introduction  to  his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iOqb6gj8D2LqZxB

Simplicius. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote - Livre II, ch. 4-6, 2022
By: Lernould, Alain

Title	Simplicius. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote - Livre II, ch. 4-6
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2022
Publication Place	Villeneuve d’Ascq
Publisher	Presses Universitaires du Septentrion
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lernould, Alain
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Les chapitres 4-6 du Livre II de la Physique d'Aristote constituent le premier essai dans notre littérature philosophique occidentale consacré au hasard et à la fortune. On y trouve l'exemple de la pierre qui en tombant d'une hauteur sur le crâne de quelqu'un le tue, repris par Spinoza dans son Éthique. Aristote et Spinoza s'accordent pour dire que la pierre n'est pas tombée pour tuer. Mais le rejet du finalisme et en même temps de toute forme de contingence chez Spinoza est aux antipodes du finalisme dans lequel Aristote peut inscrire le hasard.
Le commentaire de Simplicius apporte sur la doctrine d'Aristote des éclaircissements et des prolongements substantiels, encore peu connus, auxquels la présente traduction, la première en français, donne un accès direct. Simplicius permet en particulier de trancher sur la question de la traduction des termes t??? et a?t?µat?? en Phys. II, 4-6, à savoir, respectivement, « fortune » et « hasard » (plutôt que « hasard » et « spontanéité »).
En bon néoplatonicien, il couronne son commentaire par un hymne à la déesse Fortune. Ce livre vient à la suite de la traduction du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique, Livre II, chap. 1-3, publiée par A. Lernould aux Presses universitaires du Septentrion en 2019. Il sera suivi d'un troisième volume qui contiendra la traduction du commentaire aux trois derniers chapitres (7-9) du Livre II de la Physique, qui portent sur la finalité naturelle et la nécessité. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/m7RF2NiZPJdZBFC

Simplicius. Commentaire sur les ‹Catégories› d’Aristote, Chapitres 2–4, 2001
By: Simplicius

Title	Simplicius. Commentaire sur les ‹Catégories› d’Aristote, Chapitres 2–4
Type	Edited Book
Language	French
Date	2001
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Les Belles Lettres
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	, Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Hoffmann, Philipe(Hoffmann, Philippe ) ,

Ce volume prend la suite des deux fascicules publies dans la serie Philosophia antiqua (Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Categories, fasc. I: Proeme, trad. de Ph. Hoffmann, commentaire par I. Hadot [vol. 50], et fasc. III: Premier chapitre, trad. de Ph. Hoffmann, commentaire par C. Luna, Leiden-Kobenhavn-Koln 1990 [vol. 51]). Il sera suivi d'autres volumes qui, nous l'esperons, permettront de donner une traduction francaise integrale du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Categories. Ce volume, consacre aux chapitres 2 a 4 des Categories, par lesquels se termine le preambule a l'expose des categories proprement dit, a pris une ampleur considerable a cause de la comparaison analytique avec les sept autres commentaires neoplatonciens sur les Categories: Porphyre, Dexippe, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore, Elias, Boece. Cela nous a permis d'etablir les rapports entre ces textes et de decrire la technique exegetique propre a chacun d'entre eux. Ces resultats une fois acquis, il sera possible de reduire considerablement la taille des volumes qui vont suivre. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZUh8fz6yg7aXHBr

Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle), 2022
By: Menn, Stephen Philip

Title	Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle)
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2022
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Bloomsbury Publishing
Series	Ancient commentators on Aristotle
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Menn, Stephen Philip
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

With this translation, all 12 volumes of translation of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics have been published (full list below). In Physics 1.1–2, Aristotle raises the question of the number and character of the first principles of nature and feels the need to oppose the challenge of the paradoxical Eleatic philosophers who had denied that there could be more than one unchanging thing.

This volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary on this selected text, and includes a brief introduction, extensive explanatory notes, indexes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rvwnWaF9gp9DQtr

Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps, 2021
By: Simplicius ,

Title	Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps
Type	Monograph
Language	French
Date	2021
Publication Place	Paris
Publisher	Vrin
Series	Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Stevens, Annick(Stevens, Annick)

Comment comprendre la thèse d’Aristote que le temps est un nombre? Est-il une durée ou un ordre de succession, un simple aspect du devenir ou le responsable de sa régularité? Quel est son rapport avec l’espace? Existe-t-il un temps unique pour les divers changements dans l’univers? Des repères comme l’instant, le présent, la simultanéité, ont-ils un sens indépendamment de notre esprit? De toutes ces questions ardemment débattues parmi les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote, Simplicius, le dernier d’entre eux et certainement le plus perspicace, se fait l’écho autant que l’arbitre. Ses propositions, étonnamment modernes, sont autant d’occasions pour nous de repenser ce concept qui défie encore physiciens et philosophes.
Traduit pour la première fois en français, le texte est accompagné d’une présentation détaillée et de notes explicatives qui en facilitent la compréhension.

Traduction, introduction et notes par A. Stevens. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JRtqfd3KmUBPEU1

Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority, 2009
By: Barney, Rachel

Title	Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Antiquorum Philosophia
Volume	3
Pages	101-119
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Barney, Rachel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Second, I have tried to bring out that projects of harmonization in philosophy have a perennial attraction for philosophers and interpreters alike, and not only for those who are antecedently committed to a canon of conflicting authorities. Projects of harmonization come in many guises and range across a spectrum from the primarily philosophical to the purely exegetical. Simplicius comes close to the latter extreme: his persona and methods are, in fact, strikingly close to those of a familiar sort of modern scholar, notwithstanding the strong philosophical commitments that inform his project. Finally, I would suggest that this self-appointed role as exegete is, more than anything else, an expression of Simplicius’ self-conscious belatedness. With a few exceptions, such as the residual puzzles about place and time addressed in the Corollaries, Simplicius’ work shows us what it is like to do philosophy after all the philosophical problems have been solved. All that remains open to him is the essentially interpretive work of showing how the correct solutions fit together. [conclusion p. 117-118]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bBLV4U0YGAzXs7u

Simplicius’ Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae', 2024
By: Hauer, Mareike, Brockmann, Christian (Ed.), Deckers, Daniel (Ed.), Valente, Stefano (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius’ Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2024
Published in	Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit
Pages	269-291
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)	Brockmann, Christian , Deckers, Daniel , Valente, Stefano
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jsGhr81iLqtnRuC

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1, 2003
By: Bowen, Alan C., Simplicius

Title	Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2003
Journal	SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences
Volume	4
Pages	23-58
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Indeed, the main challenge scholars perceive in Simplicius’ commentary is to tease out and reconstruct the underlying mathematical theory that would make it all ‘true.’ Such naïveté is breathtaking. Few who read Simplicius and understand his historiographical project—a search for a truth that Aristotle’s text is supposed to embody rather than a study of the text itself on its own terms—would elevate him to a position of such unquestioned authority. And those who have reflected on the often intractable problems in assessing the truth of ancient reports or testimonia in the sciences will quite naturally decline to take Simplicius at his word in this matter.

I recognize, of course, that it is customary to detect errors in Simplicius’ account and to attribute them either to Aristotle or to Simplicius; but this, I fear, typically amounts to little more than a demonstration that we moderns can be speciously clever while taking what Simplicius writes for granted.

I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius’ comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Metaphysics Λ 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. There is, after all, no extant Greek or Latin text written before the late second century BCE that shows any knowledge of the planetary phenomena of station and retrogradation, which are so central to Simplicius’ commentary. There are also ample signs that Simplicius’ remarks about the history of early astronomy are not a report but a reconstruction occasioned by what Aristotle writes in Metaphysics Λ 8 and the need to explain why the homocentric planetary theory outlined there was later abandoned by Aristotelians. Moreover, Metaphysics Λ 8 is itself underdetermined so far as its presentation of this homocentric theory goes. Indeed, there are other interpretations of this presentation that fit far better than Simplicius’ with what we can find elsewhere in Aristotle’s writings and in documents by other writers of the fourth century.

That scholars today persist in reading Metaphysics Λ 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Metaphysics Λ 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern planetary motions, that they would not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and dated to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius’ account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless.

Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Metaphysics Λ 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes. Of course, making such a proof will be hard work. Even those sharing the general view that the Greeks of the fourth century were aware of planetary stations and retrogradations do not agree about how these phenomena were understood or explained. In addition, there are my own arguments not only that these texts may be read without supposing such knowledge but also that they should be read without such a supposition, given the contemporaneous evidence of astronomical theory.

And finally, there is the largely unrecognized problem that, even if Simplicius’ history of astronomy in Aristotle’s time is anachronistic, it has a simpler interpretation than the one first propounded in the 19th century by Schiaparelli and elaborated to this day. Granted, these scholars may wish to excuse themselves from the charge of wrongly imputing to Simplicius what they perceive as the real meaning of his text, by claiming that Simplicius is preserving material from earlier sources that he does not understand. But should historians today assent to reading an ancient commentary in a way that makes the commentator irrelevant, and should they do this in the expectation that the interpretation offered reflects the thought of some putative source from whom nothing survives for confirmation?

My own view is that compounding such a misreading of an ancient literary genre with such untestable faith—or, if you will, unassailable credulity—may have numerous outcomes, but historical knowledge will not be one of them.

Few modern historians have examined what Simplicius actually writes—the great tendency is to rely on some learned summary such as that supplied by Heath, who makes accessible in English the pioneering work of Schiaparelli. Accordingly, I here present Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8 so that readers may begin to get their own sense of what is at issue.

To this end, I have translated Heiberg’s edition of Simplicius’ commentary on the three narrowly astronomical chapters of the De caelo and have supplied my translation with annotation intended primarily to clarify the technical, scientific meaning.

Given the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–11. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius’ account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius’ commentary on 2.10–11 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12.

The annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself, by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation.

Thus, I do not engage in the details of the interpretations offered by those who assume that the early Greeks were aware of the planetary phenomena so central to Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8. Still, there is a question about just how much annotation is needed by readers of this journal, and I hope that I have not erred too much in following my natural disposition to say less.

Simplicius’ Greek is typical of scholastic commentary: elliptical, crabbed, and technical. I have tried to deal with this by supplying in square brackets what is missing whenever this seemed necessary or likely to make the meaning easier for the reader to grasp. At the same time, I have tried, so far as is reasonable and within my ability, to capture Simplicius’ technical vocabulary and to preserve the logical structure of his sentences.

This translation has benefited greatly from the generous criticism of earlier versions offered by Bernard R. Goldstein and Robert B. Todd: they have saved me from numerous mistakes and infelicities, and I am most pleased to acknowledge this.

Finally, I am very pleased to record my gratitude to Ken Saito, the Managing Editor of SCIAMVS, for his unflagging interest in this project and his encouragement as I pursued it. That my annotated translation appears in SCIAMVS is ample proof of his very kind support and his patience with a historian whose sense of time seems limited to the past. [introduction p. 23-26]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/skKbEWtOO6LigIs

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2, 2008
By: Bowen, Alan C., Simplicius

Title	Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2008
Journal	SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences
Volume	9
Pages	25-131
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In completing this project, I have relied strictly on modern editions of Aristotle’s De caelo in presenting the lemmata in full and have relegated comments about any differences with Simplicius’ abbreviated lemmata to footnotes. After all, given that we have only Simplicius’ lemmata and not the full text of the De caelo that he used, there seems little sense in presenting Aristotle’s text in full while combining it with readings from Simplicius’ text, thereby implying a text that does not exist. At the same time, I have preserved the fact that the text quoted or paraphrased in the commentary proper sometimes differs from the text found in the lemmata. Thus, the lemmata presented here differ from those offered by Ian Mueller (2005), since he revises the received text of the De caelo in light of Simplicius’ text and removes any differences between Simplicius’ lemmata and his quotations and paraphrases.

For the modern text of Aristotle’s De caelo, my primary source is Paul Moraux’s edition, as it makes extensive use of the indirect tradition in establishing Aristotle’s text. Moreover, as before, I have used Heiberg’s 1894 edition for the text of Simplicius’ commentary. However, caveat lector: this edition has recently been criticized for its reliance on the 1540 edition of the Latin translation of In De caelo made by William of Moerbeke in the 13th century. Additionally, arguments have been made for the importance of the recently discovered translation of De caelo 2 and related passages from Simplicius by Robert Grosseteste in establishing Simplicius’ text. Regrettably, there is only a proper edition thus far of Moerbeke’s translation of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 1; and, though it has certainly proved useful, we must all await the publication of the edition of Moerbeke’s version of Simplicius’ In De caelo 2. This forthcoming edition, as I understand, will account for both of Moerbeke’s translations of Simplicius’ astronomical digression in his commentary on 2.12.

As for Grosseteste’s translation, though there is apparently a typescript edition by the late Fernand Bossier, it seems to be privately circulated, and so far, I have been unable to obtain a copy.

Next, in interpreting the syntax and meaning of Simplicius’ Greek, I have used terminology that remains faithful to our ancient sources while also being familiar to historians of science, ensuring an accurate rendering of the technical language that Simplicius employs (and sometimes misuses) in the course of his philosophical and astronomical interpretations. As before, the line numbers in the margins of the translation indicate the line in which the first word of the corresponding line in Heiberg’s text appears. The result is not exact in terms of the actual line count, but it should suffice to allow readers to move between my translation and Simplicius’ text if they so wish.

Finally, I have supplied extensive footnotes and comments to explicate the many issues that readers should understand in order to assess the nature of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.12. Readers may well disagree with my claims and arguments; however, I trust that this annotation will at least help them avoid missteps—mine included. What I have not done, however, is address the voluminous literature offering reconstructions of the system of homocentric spheres that Simplicius describes in the great astronomical digression concluding his commentary on 2.12.

As in Part 1, my overriding aim is to provide only such annotation as allows readers to engage with Simplicius’ testimony directly, without obscuring it beneath layers of learned interpretation and speculation. My hope is that this approach will encourage readers to assess such reconstructions critically. Admittedly, this aim aligns with my own conclusion that such reconstructions, which trace back to Schiaparelli in the 19th century and were largely codified by Heath (1913), must today be seen as an egregious example of how scholars and their communities project their own perspectives onto the past.

Moreover, this approach fits with my conviction that Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–12 is historically significant in its own right as a witness to concerns in late antiquity about the nature and foundations of astronomical knowledge. Accordingly, I have limited my remarks on these reconstructions to instances where proponents make claims about the meaning of Simplicius’ Greek or critique his interpretations. For the most part, I have set aside alternative reconstructions proposed by Maula (1974), Heglmeier (1996), Mendell (1998, 2000), and Yavetz (1998, 2001, 2003).

For further details on the principles underlying this translation and the format of its presentation, I urge the reader to consult Part 1, especially pages 25–26. [introduction p. 25-27]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bK5nxtsNqCbstdI

Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines, 2016
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Golitsis, Pantelis, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	531–540
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe , Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Simplicius’ Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius’ predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (‘the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body’ (to tou periekhontos peras akinêton prôton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20–1) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron tês theseôs) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle’s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2

Simplicius’ response to Philoponus’ attacks on Aristotle’s Physics 8.1., 2012
By: Chase, Michael, Bodnár, István M. (Ed.), Chase, Michael (Ed.), Share, Michael (Ed.)

Title	Simplicius’ response to Philoponus’ attacks on Aristotle’s Physics 8.1.
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’
Pages	1-16
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)	Bodnár, István M. , Chase, Michael , Share, Michael
Translator(s)

The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius’ usual meticulous comments on the text of Aristotle, who here begins his demonstration of the eternity of motion. As is his wont, the Stagirite starts out with a critical survey of the views of his predecessors, which gives Simplicius the opportunity to quote and explain a number of important fragments of Presocratic philosophers (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Atomists, Diogenes of Apollonia, and especially Empedocles). But the bulk of Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8.1 consists of one of his famous digressions, in which he quotes and attempts to refute several fragments from Book 6 of "Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World," written by his Christian rival, John Philoponus, sometime in the 530s. Many of the arguments of both Philoponus and Simplicius concerning time, eternity, and the nature of the infinite are of considerable philosophical importance, as a number of recent studies have shown. Quite apart from the intrinsic interest of the various arguments mobilized by both interlocutors, however, Book 8.1 of Simplicius’ "Commentary on Physics," together with his "Commentary on the de Caelo," provide us with vitally important documents concerning the conflict between pagans and Christians in the second quarter of the sixth century AD. [p. 1]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf

Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta, 2014
By: Łapiński, Krzysztof

Title	Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta
Type	Article
Language	Polish
Date	2014
Journal	Przegląd Filozoficzno-Literacki
Volume	40
Issue	3-4
Pages	35-43
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Łapiński, Krzysztof
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius, the Neoplatonic philosopher, and commentator from late antiquity, devoted one of his commentaries to Epictetus’ Enchiridion. In the article, the author posed the question about the place of the text by the Stoic writer within the whole Neoplatonic education system. In addition, he asked to what extent the act of commenting on Epictetus’ work could be conceived by Simplicius as a kind of spiritual exercise. In the second part of the article, the hypothesis by M. Tardieu and I. Hadot is presented, suggesting that the city of Harran could be regarded as the possible place of exile where the group of philosophers settled after the Platonic Academy had been closed. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VGw8HfmmOi2CqbW

Simplikios: Wstęp do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wybór), 2014
By: Łapiński, Krzysztof

Title	Simplikios: Wstęp do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wybór)
Type	Article
Language	Polish
Date	2014
Journal	Przegląd Filozoficzno-Literacki
Volume	40
Issue	3-4
Pages	45-49
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Łapiński, Krzysztof
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The  translation  includes  an  introduction  to  the  Simplicius’  commentary 
on Epictetus’ Enchiridion. The author of the commentary explains to whom 
is  the work  of Epictetus  addressed,  what is  the scope  o f the  Enchiridion, 
the  meaning  of  the  title  and  the  literary  genre  to  which  it  belongs. 
The  supposed  audience  is  the  reader  who  wants  to  live  in  accordance 
with  reason  on  the  level  of ethical  and  political  virtues.  Such  a  reader 
ought to internalize Epictetus’ teaching and appeal to it in the challenging 
moments  of life.  The  Stoic  content  has  been  enriched with  the  Platonic 
teaching  drawn  from  Alcibiades  I   about  relationship  between  the  soul 
and the body. The first Polish translation of Simplicius’ text has been based 
on the Ilsetraut Hadot’s edition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PcngrYGo5jPGQtC

Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due παρεκβάσεις in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31–8.15 e 28.32–37.9), 2019
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano

Title	Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due παρεκβάσεις in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31–8.15 e 28.32–37.9)
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2019
Journal	Epekeina. International Journal of Ontology History and Critics
Volume	10
Issue	1
Pages	1-32
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Osserviamo, a bilancio finale, quanto segue: Simplicio affida a due digressioni di In Physica I la sua veduta complessiva sui Presocratici. Mentre Aristotele, nella sua ricostruzione storico-dialettica, inserisce i predecessori dentro griglie concettuali nelle quali le posizioni vengono poste come contraddittorie fra di loro, Simplicio muove invece dal presupposto che la filosofia dei Presocratici nel suo complesso sia in realtà unitaria, armonica e coerente. Ma Simplicio, a differenza dello Stagirita, opera alla fine del mondo antico, e la sua necessità fu innanzitutto quella di tramandare ai posteri la tradizione antica affinché tale patrimonio non andasse disperso.

Trattasi, qui, non di una necessità archeologica o erudita, bensì filosofica e ideologica a un tempo. Occorreva, peraltro, tramandare questo patrimonio come un che di armonico, unitario e intimamente coerente a un grado almeno paritetico rispetto a un’altra tradizione, quella cristiana, che dopo le incertezze e le transizioni che avevano caratterizzato il suo affacciarsi alla storia mondiale, aveva ormai consolidato il suo apparato dogmatico (specialmente dopo i concili di Efeso, Nicea e Calcedonia) e aveva dato concretezza strategica al suo piano di espansione e diffusione per il tramite di adeguati strumenti politici (editti di Milano e Tessalonica) atti a imporsi definitivamente quale visione dominante nell’Occidente alla fine del mondo antico.

Lo strumentario di cui si serve Simplicio è un ampio ricorso alla citazione diretta dei predecessori, congiuntamente a un trattamento mirante a “limare” le differenze che intercorrono fra loro e ad accentuarne i tratti comuni. La cornice teorica che accoglie questo tipo di operazione, in buona sostanza una “platonizzazione” di tutti i Presocratici, è il neoplatonismo, della cui tradizione Simplicio è l’ultimo erede pagano. Vale la pena, a tal proposito, sottolineare un ultimo fatto: quando Simplicio fa riferimento a una tradizione filosofica unitaria e coerente, che dalle origini giunge fino al suo tempo, egli non qualifica siffatta tradizione come platonica, bensì come antica.

Si tratta di un fatto che solo apparentemente contraddice quanto abbiamo asserito, e cioè che la teoria della συμφωνία dei Presocratici scaturisca da un’interpretazione, fondamentalmente, neoplatonica. Il riferirsi, da parte di Simplicio, a una tradizione indeterminata di veteres non andrà interpretato come uno sbiadimento della consapevolezza di possedere un’identità e un’eredità storica e filosofica ben determinata (che, fondamentalmente, è quella del neoplatonismo ateniese), bensì come testimonianza di un passaggio storico ormai avvenuto.

Questo passaggio storico consiste in questo: Simplicio non opera in un contesto quale quello dell’età classica, in cui l’Accademia e il Peripato si contendevano l’egemonia filosofica e culturale ateniese, e non opera nemmeno, a seguire, in un contesto paragonabile al periodo successivo alla morte di Alessandro Magno, in cui il pensiero greco si trova disperso nei rivoli delle αἱρέσεις ellenistiche e in cui una delle cifre dominanti è costituita da un agonismo che non sembra avere mai fine.

Il contesto storico in cui opera Simplicio è, diversamente, quello della fine di un mondo, quello pagano, a cui ne sta per subentrare un altro, quello della Christianitas. Non si tratta più, in sostanza, di affermare il primato di una scuola o di una tradizione di pensiero rispetto ad altre tradizioni che non appartengono a quella platonica, perché le priorità, adesso, sono mutate.

In questo passaggio epocale, la proposta filosofica e culturale di Simplicio sembra consistere, in altre parole, in una sorta di panellenismo filosofico. Come Isocrate, al fine di proseguire la lotta contro i Persiani, aveva cercato di superare i contrasti fra le varie πόλεις, cercando di radunare le loro energie e di riunirle politicamente sotto l’egemonia ateniese, così Simplicio, al fine di proseguire la lotta contro i Cristiani, mira a superare i contrasti e le divergenze fra le varie tradizioni di pensiero, dichiarandoli apparenti, e teorizza, appunto, la loro συμφωνία, sotto l’egemonia platonica.

L’ermeneutica che caratterizza il procedere di Simplicio è segnata, in particolare, dalla coppia concettuale “enigma/chiarezza”. Secondo il Commentatore, il secondo modulo espressivo appartiene in modo eminente a Platone (e in parte anche ad Aristotele), mentre il primo ai Presocratici, e in particolare a Parmenide, Empedocle e i Pitagorici.

Sarebbe proprio la modalità espressiva enigmatica, per Simplicio, la causa principale dei fraintendimenti che avrebbero condotto alcuni a concepire i Presocratici in agonismo fra di loro, proprio come vorrebbe lasciar intendere certa dossografia cristiana. La classificazione simpliciana dei Presocratici (che, come si è visto, è una tripartizione) è funzionale, però, solo a una migliore comprensione delle ragioni della loro profonda unità.

Conformemente all’uso tecnico e tardo settecentesco del termine «sinfonia», possiamo dire che nell’ottica di Simplicio la filosofia dei Presocratici fu una sinfonia nel senso di un brano composto da più movimenti – più propriamente una “sonata per orchestra”: ἡ παλαιὰ φιλοσοφία μένει ἀνέλεγκτος.
[conclusion p. 29-32]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d1OxzfD4Xu8EZnr

Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato’s Cratylus and Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, 2016
By: van den Berg, Robbert Maarten , Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato’s Cratylus and Aristotle’s De Interpretatione
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	353-366
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	van den Berg, Robbert Maarten
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

How much did the god of eloquence allow Ammonius to add? No other sources of Proclus’ course on the Int. survive. Yet in one case we are able to study Ammonius’ originality or the lack of it: his discussion of Aristotle’s views on onomata, a group of words that corresponds roughly speaking to our nouns and which I shall refer to as ‘names’ in this paper.

One of the major issues in Greek linguistic thought throughout Antiquity was the relation between names and their objects. Does there exist some sort of natural relation between names and their objects, or are names just a matter of convention? Plato had discussed the question in his Cratylus, in which he had made a certain Hermogenes the spokesman of the conventionalist position and the eponymous character Cratylus an adherent of the naturalist position. In the end, Socrates forces both Hermogenes and Cratylus to admit that names are partly by nature and partly by convention, hence that they are both right and wrong. Many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe that in the first chapters of Int. Aristotle responded at least in part to the views expressed in the Cratylus. As it so happens, an excerpt of Proclus’ lecture notes on that Platonic dialogue has survived. A first reading of the two commentaries seems indeed to suggest that there is a substantial overlap between them on the relevant issue, even though Proclus may at times be critical of Aristotle. As we shall see, this apparent correspondence has even inspired an attempt to emend Proclus’ text at one point on the basis of Ammonius’ commentary.

In this paper, I will argue that in fact Ammonius’ concept of onoma is significantly different from that of Proclus. As Proclus had observed, but as Ammonius tried to downplay, Aristotle had been arguing against Plato. For Proclus, this did not pose any particular problem. Like all Neoplatonists, Ammonius included, he was convinced that the divinely inspired Plato had to be right. If Aristotle chose to deviate from Plato and the truth, that was his problem. Proclus sets Socrates up as a judge (in Crat. §10, p. 4,12) between the conventionalist Hermogenes and the naturalist Cratylus, a judge who shows that they are both right and wrong. Aristotle is explicitly counted among the partisans of Hermogenes. On the whole, one can say that Proclus is very critical of Aristotle in in Crat.

Ammonius, on the other hand, wanted to show that Plato and Aristotle were in complete harmony with each other, even where this is not evident. He too presents Socrates as a mediator between Hermogenes and Cratylus (in Int. 37,1), but this time Aristotle is not grouped together with Hermogenes but presented as being of the same mind as Socrates. As we shall see, Ammonius, when discussing the nature of names, takes his point of departure from Aristotle. Since Aristotle’s idea of what a name is differs from Plato’s, Ammonius will arrive at a concept of name that is fundamentally different from that of Proclus, who takes Plato as his starting point. On the assumption that Proclus, who for the most part appears to be quite consistent throughout his enormous œuvre, did not radically change his views when lecturing on Int., we may thus infer from this that Ammonius was not slavishly following Proclus. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of Ammonius’ interpretation of Cratylus’ position in the dialogue. In order to harmonize Plato with Aristotle, Ammonius offers a rather original, albeit not very convincing, reading of that position.

Once we have established the fundamental difference between the two of them, we will be better able to explain a phenomenon to which Richard Sorabji has recently drawn attention: the absence of any interest in divine names in Ammonius’ commentary. Finally, this case study will allow us to make a more general observation about the relation between the Athenian and Alexandrian commentators. [introduction p. 353-355]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U7I3LYIXJL83A4Y

Speculating about Diogenes, 2008
By: Laks, André, Curd, Patricia (Ed.), Graham, Daniel W. (Ed.)

Title	Speculating about Diogenes
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy
Pages	353-364
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Laks, André
Editor(s)	Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W.
Translator(s)

Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diogène d’Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels’s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes’ popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes’ depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar?

Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of “material monism.”

I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham’s paradoxical point); but Graham’s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/438sP1InUW9fsIE

Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio, 2023
By: Giuseppe Nastasi

Title	Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2023
Journal	Elenchos: Rivista di Studi Sul Pensiero Antico
Volume	44
Issue	2
Pages	333-365
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Giuseppe Nastasi
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories contains the most extended testimony about the Stoic conception of acting (ποιεῖν) and undergoing (πάσχειν). Simplicius ascribed to the Stoics the idea that acting and undergoing are to be reduced to the movement. To this opinion Simplicius opposed the Aristotelian view according to which acting and undergoing are two different categories. In this paper I intend to outline the original Stoic position comparing the reportage of Simplicius with other Stoic sources. Later, I will deal with Boethus’ defense of the distinction between the categories of acting and undergoing. I will argue that Boethus directly reacted against the Stoic opinion reformulating it in Aristotelian language. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8cin65Qpb0Uymcj

Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes, 2014
By: Sotiria Triantari

Title	Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter
Volume	17
Issue	1
Pages	85-98
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sotiria Triantari
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Was the Byzantine thinker Nicephorus Blemmydes directly influenced in his views about human “proairesis” by the Stoic Epictetus or did he take over his views from the Neoplatonic Simplicius? After exploring Blemmydes’ reception of Epictetus, one can say that Blemmydes drew elements in a brief treatise under the title “De virtute et ascesi” from the mainly Neoplatonic Simplicius, who commented on the handbook by the Stoic Epictetus. Blemmydes, following Simplicius identifies “φ’ μν” with “aftexousion” and he designates “proairesis” as an activity, which emanates from “aftexousion”. Blemmydes shows the moral power of “proairesis” as a transforming factor of human existence and the mediatory factor to the dialectical relation between man and God. For the completion of the study, the following sources have been used: Blemmydes’ De virtute et ascesi, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Neoplatonic Simplicius’ commentaries on the Handbook. I specifically focus on the views of Aristotle, Epictetus, and Neoplatonic Simplicius about “proairesis” and compare the views of Blemmydes to Simplicius’ ideas. I conclude that Blemmydes drew ideas from Simplicius, with regard to human “proairesis” and in the context of the practising and cultivating virtues in everyday life. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/L5aG4m1stEAka7L

Stoische Ethik und platonische Bildung: Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Handbüchlein der Moral, 2013
By: Vogel, C.

Title	Stoische Ethik und platonische Bildung: Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Handbüchlein der Moral
Type	Monograph
Language	German
Date	2013
Publication Place	Heidelberg
Publisher	Universitätsverlag
Series	Studien zu Literatur und Erkenntnis
Volume	5
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Vogel, C.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Die stoische Philosophie steht in ihren grundsätzlichen Annahmen zur Erkenntnistheorie, zur Ontologie und zur Psychologie dem Platonismus diametral entgegen. Wenn mit Simplikios ein Philosoph der neuplatonischen Schule das Werk eines Stoikers durch eine ausführliche Kommentierung würdigt und diesem im Curriculum des Philosophieunterrichts einen Platz einräumt, scheinen sich die gängigen Vorurteile gegen den Neuplatonismus als eine alles vereinnahmende und harmonisierende Philosophie zu bestätigen. Ein Blick auf das Bildungsverständnis des Neuplatonismus und den in den Texten ausführlich reflektierten erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen bietet jedoch Anlass sowohl zur Skepsis gegenüber diesen Vorwürfen als auch zu einer differenzierten Untersuchung des Verhältnisses von platonischer und stoischer Ethik in der Spätantike. Am Beispiel von Simplikios' Kommentar zum 'Handbüchlein der Moral' des Epiket soll im vorliegenden Buch die Möglichkeit der Verwendung stoischer Texte als Vorbereitung für den Einstieg in das neuplatonische Bildungsprogramm dargelegt und begründet werden, ohne dass der Einsatz dieser Texte zu einer Vermischung der stoischen mit den platonisch-aristotelischen Theorien führt. So liefert Simplikios mit seinem Kommentar eine wissenschaftliche Ethik des Neuplatonismus, die mit der Darlegung und Beschreibung der Anweisungen Epiktets dem Unkundigen sowohl einen ersten Zugang in das philosophische Leben bietet als auch mit seinen weiterführenden Kommentierungen die rationalen Begründungen dieser Handlungsaufforderungen offenlegt.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xXsDZFA5RWj8rnI

Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus, 2019
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Manolea, Christina-Panagiota (Ed.), Sarah Klitenic Wear (Ed.)

Title	Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2019
Publication Place	Amsterdam
Publisher	Brill
Series	Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition
Volume	24
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Manolea, Christina-Panagiota , Sarah Klitenic Wear
Translator(s)

Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus is a collection of twelve essays that consider aspects of Hermias’ philosophy, including his notions of the soul, logic, and method of exegesis. The essays also consider Hermias’ work in the tradition of Neoplatonism, particularly in relation to the thought of Iamblichus and Proclus. The collection grapples with the question of the originality of Hermias’ commentary—the only extant work of Hermias—which is a series of lectures notes of his teacher, Syrianus. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JT8zFjOka3rHpsJ

Title	Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2013
Published in	Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010
Pages	469-494
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)
Translator(s)

And if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting.

The title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading “challenging literary texts.” It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required.

To play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: “In this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man’s writings admit of more than one interpretation.” This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author.

To avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias’ argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed.

All participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates’ belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine.

For this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things.

When commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (ἐπιπόλαιοι) and profound (βαθύτεροι) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, “find pleasure in plausible arguments,” based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. “The more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (πρόχειρον) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.”

In this sense, I would also like to be a ‘profound’ reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor.

For, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: “What do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?” [conclusion p. 490-492]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0

The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle, 2009
By: Tuominen, Miira

Title	The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2009
Publication Place	Berkley
Publisher	University of California Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tuominen, Miira
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The study of the ancient commentators has developed considerably over the past few decades, fueled by recent translations of their often daunting writings. This book offers the only concise, accessible general introduction currently available to the writings of the late ancient commentators on Aristotle and, to a lesser extent, Plato. Miira Tuominen provides a historical overview followed by a series of thematic chapters on epistemology, science and logic, physics, psychology, metaphysics, and ethics. In particular, she focuses on the writings of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Porphyry, Proclus, Philoponus, and Simplicius. Until recently, the late ancient commentators have been understood mainly as sources of information concerning the masters upon whose works they comment. This book offers new insights into their way of doing philosophy in their own right. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vWARKgjVH1fGgSq

The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism, 2014
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

Title	The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume	2
Issue	4
Pages	7-23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The employment of these two seemingly innocuous and certainly ubiquitous terms is in fact rarely edifying. An easy means of seeing why this is so is to ask what sort of Aristotelian cause influence and development are supposed to indicate. Since we are talking about temporal succession, presumably we would have in mind efficient or moving causes. But it only requires a moment’s reflection to realize that the views of one philosopher never stand in relation to the views of another as efficient cause to effect.

Thus, for example, it is not because Plato believed that nominalism is false that Aristotle believed that nominalism is false, even if it is indeed the case that Aristotle accepted Platonic arguments to this effect. If, however, we loosen the connection between Plato and Aristotle and agree that the views of the former did not cause the views of the latter, what is the influence supposed to amount to? Indeed, why claim that Aristotle is influenced by Plato, with whom he happened to agree on many issues, and not by, say, Democritus, with whom he happened to disagree? Surely, one can be inspired to embrace a position that is exactly the opposite of that which one hears from another.

Consider “development.” The perfectly anodyne sense of this term—namely, that according to which the sequence of writings in an author indicates the progress or course of his thought—is quite useless. But as soon as you try to gin up this weak sense of development into something more portentous, you get into serious trouble. If, for example, you say that Plato’s thought developed in the sense that his later dialogues represent an advancement in, or even a change from, his earlier thought—apart from cases of outright contradiction of which there are few or none—you have to specify what the development is a development of; that is, to use Aristotelian terminology once again, what is the underlying substrate for the development? But this underlying substrate will be the locus of continuity throughout the putative development; continuity that may be far more important than any change.

I am not suggesting that Plato or any other philosopher never changed his mind. I am suggesting that the changes cannot ever be viewed uncritically as going from false to true or wrong to right. Consider someone who believes that the high point of Plato’s thinking occurred in the early or middle dialogues. Someone like this would not consider the middle or late dialogues developments in any sense but the anodyne one mentioned above. Some scholars, looking at the identical texts, believe that Aristotle developed from a Platonist to something like an anti-Platonist, while others believe that his anti-Platonism was only a “phase” after which he developed into a Platonist once again. None of this is very helpful.

The reason I bring it up is that the Platonists of late antiquity who introduced the philosophical curriculum wherein the commentaries played such an important role were mostly impervious to the siren song of linearity. As we know from the accounts of the philosophical curriculum, perhaps introduced by Iamblichus or Porphyry in the late third century, students were obliged to study Aristotle before studying Plato. Studying Aristotle, or at least some of the works of Aristotle, was thought to be the most suitable preparation for studying Plato.

The reason for this is quite simple: the Platonists were aiming at truth rather than what we might like to think of as an “objective and unbiased” account of the “development” of the history of philosophy. But we still should want to ask why the study of Aristotle was supposed to be conducive to understanding the truth as it is revealed in Plato and articulated by the man whom Proclus called “the exegete of the Platonic revelation,” namely, Plotinus.

Simplicius provides a preliminary answer to this question when he says in his Physics commentary that Aristotle was authoritative for the sensible world as Plato was for the intelligible world. Beginning the study of philosophy “in” the sensible world, in accord with Aristotle’s remark in Physics—that we start with things more intelligible to us and move to things more intelligible by nature—puts the student in a better position to appreciate the more difficult insights found in the two works that comprise the culmination of philosophical study: namely, Timaeus and Parmenides.

Let us be quite specific. The study of Categories is supposed to assist the student in preparing for the study of the intelligible world. Initially, this seems far-fetched. Indeed, it is not uncommon for contemporary Aristotle scholars to take Categories as in a way programmatic for an anti-Platonic Aristotelian philosophy, the focus of which is the individual sensible substance. So, on this showing, Iamblichus was naive to think that he was molding disciples of Platonism by having the students read Categories even before they encountered a dialogue of Plato.

As I have argued elsewhere, Iamblichus and Simplicius and many other prominent Platonists of late antiquity believed that Aristotle’s philosophy was in harmony with Platonism. The way I characterized harmony was to argue that Aristotle’s philosophy stood to Platonism analogous to the way that Newtonian mechanics stood to quantum mechanics. I was and am not altogether happy with letting my argument rest on an analogy in part because, in trying to explore further the details of harmony, one soon runs up against the limitations of the analogy.

Instead, I would like to pursue a different approach here. I would like to argue that what underlies the claims of harmony is a set of shared principles; shared not only by self-proclaimed Platonists and by Aristotle, but by virtually all philosophers from at least 200 CE until perhaps the beginning of the seventeenth century, with only a few notable exceptions. It will become clear as I proceed why I have cast my net so widely. And I hope it will also become clear why the Aristotelian commentary tradition remains a critical component in the larger Platonic project. [introduction p. 7-9]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fH9zEC1gXGTy5tA

The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide, 2004
By: Sellars, J. T., Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	239-268
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sellars, J. T.
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

In  what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, 
outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies 
containing further references.* It  is designed to supplement the  existing bibliography in: 
[l] R.  Sorabji, ed., Aristotle  Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence 
(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. 
The  focus  here  is  on  the  ancient  commentators, but  reference  will  also  be  made  to 
Byzantine commentators. For  a  list of  around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, 
Byzantine,  Islamic,  medieval,  and  renaissance  - see  the  final  pages  of  [ 2 ]   Operum 
Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium,  ed.  I Casaubon  (Lugduni,  apud 
Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by  a detailed inventory of  individual 
commentaries  arranged  by  the  Aristotelian  text  upon  which  they  comment.  This  very 
useful  second list is reprinted in:  [3] Aristotelis  Opera Omnia quae  extant  Uno Volumine 
Comprehensa, ed. C. H.  Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more 
recent  list  of ancient  commentaries  by R.  Goulet  in  D P h A   1,437-41  (1993),  now 
supplemented by  M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z

The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima, 2020
By: Gabor, Gary

Title	The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2020
Journal	Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
Volume	35
Issue	1
Pages	1-22
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pVUbfH8m3jQVsKw

The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, 2004
By: Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Taylor, Richard C. (Ed.)

Title	The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	Cambridge
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Taylor, Richard C.
Translator(s)

Philosophy written in Arabic and in the Islamic world represents one of the great traditions of Western philosophy. Inspired by Greek philosophical works and the indigenous ideas of Islamic theology, Arabic philosophers from the ninth century onwards put forward ideas of great philosophical and historical importance. This collection of essays, by some of the leading scholars in Arabic philosophy, provides an introduction to the field by way of chapters devoted to individual thinkers (such as al-Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes) or groups, especially during the 'classical' period from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. It also includes chapters on areas of philosophical inquiry across the tradition, such as ethics and metaphysics. Finally, it includes chapters on later Islamic thought, and on the connections between Arabic philosophy and Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophy. The volume also includes a useful bibliography and a chronology of the most important Arabic thinkers. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CWyIAoel4RYZzMZ

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume I, 2010
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

Title	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume I
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2010
Publication Place	Cambrige
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Volume	I
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially
commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200–800 ce.
Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval
Philosophy (ed. A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of schol-
arship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy
as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assess-
ments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume
also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been
written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested
in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PBCTQTxz4lJBD2L

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II, 2011
By: Gerson, Lloyd P. (Ed.)

Title	The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2011
Publication Place	Cambridge
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Volume	2
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Translator(s)

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200–800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW

The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian, 2005
By: Maas, Michael (Ed.)

Title	The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Cambridge – New York
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Maas, Michael
Translator(s)

This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527–565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ

The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators, 2016
By: Gottschalk, Hans B., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages	61-88
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gottschalk, Hans B.
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the
fi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist
opponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something
of Andronicus’ philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work
on Aristotle’s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but
now largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that
Andronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on
Chapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated
enormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic
interpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description
‘scholasticism’, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a
description we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery
of new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a
contribution on some of Boethus’ achievement and further detail on the
commentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6.
Th e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words ‘critical edition’ at the
opening of Gottschalk’s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was
challenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by
comparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what
the original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what
Andronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript
there, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly
reduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re-
Interpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of
Aristotle’s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this
argument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle’s voluminous school writings,
by joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for
reading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ

Title	The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Patras
Publisher	Institut for Philosophical Research
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Pierrēs, Apostolos L.
Translator(s)

In general, editing seems to have been rather ‘hands off’. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles’ cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as ‘probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work’ (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.

Anthony Kenny’s ‘Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition’ offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles’ reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold’s ‘Empedocles on Etna’. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold’s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although ‘Empedocles on Etna’ may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: ‘Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born’ (30).

Glenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche’s Empedocles in his ‘The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles’. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles ‘played quite a significant role in Nietzsche’s intellectual world’ (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was ‘far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being’ (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as ‘der reine tragische Mensch’, that, perhaps under the influence of Hölderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius’ account).

In ‘Empedocles: two theologies, two projects’, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles’ physical and ethical theories. He interprets ‘The Origins’ and ‘The Purifications’ as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that ‘[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference’ (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 ‘extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus’ (62).

Rene Nünlist’s ‘Poetological imagery in Empedocles’ considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8’s κόμος ἐπέων in Empedocles B17’s λόγου στόλος. Nünlist argues that Empedocles’ ‘poetological imagery’ is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to ‘convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method’ (79). Nünlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.

Richard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his ‘Empedocles’ Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction’. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles’ physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko’s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles’ Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests ‘at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet’ (113).

In ‘On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles’, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the ‘one poem or two?’ question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles’ ‘esoteric’ and ‘exoteric’ teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural ‘you’, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any ‘serious teaching’ (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd’s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that ‘one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge’ (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd’s Baconian Empedocles ‘sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world’ (153).

Richard McKirahan’s ‘Assertion and argument in Empedocles’ cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?’ offers a subtle and stimulating survey of ‘the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief’ (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes’s assertion that those reading his cosmology ‘look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.’2 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles’ debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, ‘Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses’ (183).

Apostolos Pierris argues for a ‘tripartite correspondence’ (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his ‘ Ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ and Δίνη : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.’ Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles’ thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle’s critique along the way. He concludes that ‘in understanding Empedocles’ system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other’ (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.

In ‘The topology and dynamics of Empedocles’ cycle’, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O’Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called ‘Oscillation Theory’ makes the most sense of Empedocles’ use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles’ Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.

Oliver Primavesi’s ‘The structure of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous’ also has in its sights O’Brien’s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that ‘O’Brien’s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is […] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1′ (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O’Brien’s alternations and which were ‘composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open’ (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.

André Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles’ cosmology and demonology in his ‘Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles’. He champions a ‘correspondence model’ of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that ‘we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle’ and, further, that ‘although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity’ (267). Cosmic ‘necessity’ is absolute, whilst demonic ‘Necessity’ is hypothetical.

In ‘Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles’ cosmic cycle’, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of ‘mechanical and deterministic’ reading of Empedocles’ cycle which, by imposing ‘fixed periods between regular recurring events […] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance’ (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles’ Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles’ daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115’s ‘oracle of necessity’ and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to ‘set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven’ (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.

Angelo Tonelli’s ‘Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles’ fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9′ is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles’ ‘initiation poems’ and the ‘oriental spiritual tradition’. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles’ mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles’ wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. ‘But this’, Tonelli asserts, ‘is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism’ (330).

David Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles’ double zoogony in his ‘Empedocles’ life cycles’. He argues against the reading that places Love’s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy ‘accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history […] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it’ (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. ‘Love’s zoogony was itself located in our world’ (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love’s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife’s ‘discordant anthropogony’ (355) results in ‘wretched race of men and women […] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them’ (347).

In ‘Empedocles’ zoogony and embryology’, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife’s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, ‘suffocated’ by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife’s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for ‘he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated’ (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles’ double zoogony as ‘repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo’ (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles’ theory of the transmigration of souls.

I can’t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration ‘The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought’ (407). Had the book’s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TxAm4obxbTupTry

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs, 2008
By: Keyser, Paul T. (Ed.), Irby-Massie, Georgia L. (Ed.)

Title	The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	London – New York
Publisher	Routledge
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L.
Translator(s)

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world’s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work – resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.

Additional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/up8tW1NBxVY23yX

The Eternity of the World in the Sixth Century: Philoponus, Simplicius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (Honours thesis, University of Melbourne), 2004
By: Champion, M.

Title	The Eternity of the World in the Sixth Century: Philoponus, Simplicius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (Honours thesis, University of Melbourne)
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2004
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Champion, M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lC3PA3DaUFDyp4y

The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden, 2015
By: Holmes, Brooke (Ed.), Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich (Ed.)

Title	The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2015
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	De Gruyter
Series	Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Volume	338
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Holmes, Brooke , Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich
Translator(s)

Our understanding of science, mathematics, and medicine today can be deeply enriched by studying the historical roots of these areas of inquiry in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. The present volume brings together contributions from more than thirty of the most important scholars working in these fields in the United States and Europe in honor of the eminent historian of ancient science and medicine Heinrich von Staden. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1YGQJ7tLmJ8jROq

The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle’s Physics, 2021
By: Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd, Arnzen, Rüdiger (Ed.)

Title	The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor: Pieter Sjoerd Hasper
Pages	CXIII-CLXXXVII
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd
Editor(s)	Arnzen, Rüdiger
Translator(s)

These claims about the extent of contamination from group γ in each part of the group constituted by EΨKbe cannot be made without the evidence of two further sources: Simplicius’ commentary and the β group. It cannot be established whether the main manuscript used by Simplicius is completely independent of the extant manuscript tradition, but that may also be because the evidence is almost exclusively drawn from just one book of the Physics. It seems as if Simplicius shares a small number of errors or rejectable readings with the γ group, but this cannot be taken to imply that Simplicius is to be located in the stemma as most closely related to that group. This also remains a possibility. As there is no real evidence in Physics VIII that Simplicius’ manuscript shares errors with parts of the direct tradition, we may, for the time being, assume that it is independent of the direct tradition, and thus, that in most cases, the consensus between Simplicius and a substantial part of the direct tradition provides the reading to be adopted.

However, since the information provided by a commentary is by its nature rather patchy and does not lend itself to passing on insignificant errors, even more important is the position of the β group within the stemma. This group clearly shares a substantial list of errors with the γ group and thus, together with that group, constitutes the other half of the stemma. On the other hand, it often agrees with (parts of) the EΨKbe group in that it does not feature many of the changes to the text that are found in the γ group. Thus, stemmatically inappropriate constellations of consensus between parts of the EΨKbe group and the γ group can be identified as contaminations.

The main exemplar of the Arabic translation is of similar importance for drawing these conclusions, since knowledge of its readings allows us to see the structure of the EΨKbe group far more clearly and to filter out all the many singular mistakes in E. It often joins E in providing the clearly superior reading and occasionally offers the correct reading alone. [conclusion p. CLXXXVI]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vSxI4j6pyBYMACx

The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003, 2004
By: Gannagé, Emma (Ed.)

Title	The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2004
Publication Place	Beyrouth
Publisher	Bibliothèque Orientale - Dar El-Machreq
Series	Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph
Volume	57
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gannagé, Emma
Translator(s)

Nous tirons ces détails de l’Introduction (p. 9-12) que signe P. Crone (Princeton), la responsable de la réunion et qu’on peut considérer comme la première éditrice scientifique du volume collectif, à en juger, entre autres, par les références qui lui sont faites dans les remerciements de plusieurs des coauteurs. On connaît, du reste, son ouvrage de fond, Gods Rule Government in Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Columbia UP, New York, 2004), qui a fourni l’occasion de réunir les collègues intéressés autour de l’une des composantes de cette pensée, pensée dont l’analyse s’avère tellement actuelle en fonction de la conjoncture internationale. À ce propos, on ne manquera pas de saluer l’idée de publier les fruits de cette réflexion, menée dans une institution occidentale lointaine, au cœur même de la région où l’orientation politique de la religion est « vécue » intensément, même si le périodique en cause appartient à une institution académique mi-étrangère.

L’ouvrage s’ouvre par une grosse étude sur le réalisme de la pensée politique grecque, dont l’auteur figure parmi les cinq coéditeurs de l’ouvrage : – Eckart Schütrumpf (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder), Imperfect Regimes for Imperfect Human Beings: Variations of Infractions of Justice, p. 9-36.

Précédant les textes traitant directement du sujet, une série de cinq contributions étudie la réception des idées politiques de la Grèce antique durant la Basse Antiquité et nous offre un tableau général de la pensée politique du Moyen-Orient à la veille de l’apparition de l’islam : – Sarah Pearce (Univ. of Southampton), King Moses: Notes on Philo’s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses, p. 37-74 (avec de longues citations de texte) ; – Harold A. Drake (Univ. of California Santa Barbara), The Eusabian Template, p. 75-88 ; – Dominic J. O’Meara (Univ. de Fribourg), Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum, chap. 32), p. 89-98 (rappelons qu’il s’agit d’un disciple de Damascius, exilé avec son maître en Perse, lors de la suppression de l’École d’Athènes par Justinien) ; – Henri Hugonnard-Roche (EPHE, Sorbonne-Paris), Éthique et politique au premier âge de la tradition syriaque, p. 99-119 (s’intéresse plus à l’éthique personnelle, certes avec ses implications sociales, qu’à la politique de la cité) ; – John W. Watt (Cardiff Univ., Wales), Syriac and Syrians as Mediators of Greek Political Thought to Islam, p. 121-149.

Les deux exposés suivants mettent en relief un aspect jusqu’ici peu relevé, à savoir : l’importance de la tradition perse sassanide dans la tradition moyen-orientale aux débuts de l’islam : – Kevin van Bladel (Univ. of Southern California Los Angeles), The Iranian Chracteristics and Forged Greek Attributions in the Arabic Sirr al-asrār (Secret of Secrets), p. 151-172 ; – Mohsen Zakeri (J.W. Goethe-Univ., Frankfurt), The Persian Content of an Arabic Collection of Aphorisms, p. 173-190 (1).

Une double conclusion ressort de ces deux études, renforcée par la lecture de plusieurs des précédentes : d’un côté, la diffusion certaine de la pensée grecque en territoire iranien et, de l’autre, l’impact indéniable de la tradition persane dans l’ensemble du Moyen-Orient. En conséquence, l’islam naissant a rencontré une réalité culturelle fruit du croisement de ce double courant, même si le prestige de l’hellénisme était plus grand au moment de l’élaboration de la culture musulmane classique.

P. Crone est consciente de cette réalité, allant même jusqu’à affirmer qu’au-delà du mouvement de traductions avec la chaîne de production littéraire qui s’en est suivie, somme toute accessible à des milieux restreints, le background helléno-iranien en question a constitué les véritables bases de la culture islamique globalement parlant (p. 9). À ce propos, elle situe les débuts du mouvement de traductions au milieu du viie siècle avec l’émergence de la dynastie abbasside. Or, précisément dans le domaine de la philosophie politique, hermétisme et cycle d’Alexandre le Grand compris, des recherches récentes (Grignaschi, entre autres) prouvent que des textes importants avaient été connus dès la seconde période omeyyade, à savoir dès les débuts de ce même siècle.
La plupart des interventions traitant du thème central sont consacrées au « Faylasūf al-islām ». La dernière, celle sur les textes néoplatoniciens, fait partie de ce groupe, dans la mesure où al-Fārābī est le plus grand représentant de ce courant en islam : – P. Crone, Al-Fārābī’s Imperfect Constitutions, p. 191-228 ; – Emma Gannagé (USJ), Y a-t-il une pensée politique dans le Kitāb al-Ḥurūf d’al-Fārābī ?, p. 229-257 ; – Dimitri Gutas (Yale Univ. ; l’un des coéditeurs), The Meaning of madanī in F.’s “ Political ” Philosophy, p. 259-282 ; – Nelly Lahoud (Goucher College, Baltimore), Fārābī: on Religion and Philosophy, p. 283-302 (position qui annonce celle « sensationnelle » d’Ibn Rušd, que nous trouverons plus loin). – Georges Tamer (Friedrich-Alexander-Univ., Erlangen-Nürnberg), Politisches Denkens in pseudoplatonischen arabischen Schriften, p. 303-335 (les différents textes connus sous le nom de Nawāmīs [Aflāṭūn], avec de longs extraits de l’un d’eux).

Deux autres articles abordent des textes de l’ismaïlisme fatimide, où les influences grecques apparaissent, somme toute, négligeables : – Carmela Baffioni (Univ. degli Studi di Napoli “ L’Orientale ”), Temporal and Religious Connotations of the “ Regal Policy ” in the Ikhwān al-Ṣafā, p. 337-365 ; – Paul E. Walker (Univ. of Chicago), “ In Praise of al-Ḥākim ”. Greek Elements in Ismaili Writings on the Imamate, p. 367-392 (longues citations de textes de la 2e génération de duʿā’ ; noter la mise au point en appendice sur les véritables relations de l’ismaïlisme avec la falsafa, p. 389 et s.).

Délaissant curieusement le grand Avicenne, sur lequel il y eut quand même deux « texts papers » qui ne figurent pas dans notre volume, celui-ci passe à al-Ġazzālī : – Jules Janssens (Katholieke Univ. Leuven), Al-Ghazzālī’s Political Thought: Elements of Greek Philosophical Influence, p. 393-410.

La difficulté d’un exposé sur la matière tient du fait de l’existence de spuria dans la transmission textuelle d’une œuvre qui scelle, d’une certaine manière, la période classique. À notre avis, l’auteur aurait dû donner plus d’attention dans son analyse à deux facteurs supplémentaires : le public auquel s’adressait le théologien-soufi (philosophes et érudits ou bien l’umma en général) et la chronologie de ses écrits, vu que la prise du pouvoir par les Selčūks a été déterminante dans le changement de ses positions politiques. Cela a été récemment mis en évidence, du moins au niveau de l’imamat et du sultanat, dans le chapitre correspondant de l’ouvrage d’O. Safi (2).

Dans cette étude originale, on trouvera, de plus, une analyse circonstanciée de la pensée de l’« artisan » de cette nouvelle société et de sa culture, Niẓām al-Mulk. Ainsi donc, la lacune qu’exprimait P. Crone dans son Introduction (p. 11-12), pour des raisons qui ne peuvent lui être imputées (empêchement des spécialistes contactés…), pourra être partiellement comblée. Mais ce serait surtout l’ouvrage de M. Allam qui répondrait le mieux à la nécessité ressentie de suivre les développements postérieurs de la philosophie politique en islam iranien et oriental (3). On notera que l’auteur y analyse, en particulier, la postérité du Aḫlāq-i Nāṣirī du polygraphe ismāʿīlien Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Tūsī (1201-1274), qui se situe bien dans la ligne de la pensée gréco-musulmane.

Mais à défaut de cet Orient, l’ouvrage poursuit avec les penseurs d’Occident. À côté de deux exposés qui n’y ont pas été inclus, trois portent sur les deux plus grands représentants de cette tradition : – Maroun Awad (CNRS, Paris ; l’un des coéditeurs), Does Averroes Have a Philosophy of History?, p. 411-441 ; – Charles E. Butterworth (Univ. of Maryland, College Park), The Essential Accidents of Human Social Organization in the Muqaddima of Ibn Khaldūn, p. 443-467 ; – Abdesselam Cheddadi (Univ. Mohammed V, Rabat), La tradition philosophique et scientifique gréco-arabe dans la Muqaddima d’Ibn Khaldūn, p. 469-497.

Les deux derniers articles offrent une perspective comparative quant à la réception de la pensée antique dans le monothéisme « rival » (si l’on peut s’exprimer ainsi), qu’il soit de couleur orientale ou occidentale : – Dimiter G. Angelov (Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo), Plato, Aristotle and “ Byzantine Political Philosophy ”, p. 499-523 ; – Cary J. Nederman (Texas A & M Univ.), Imperfect Regimes in the Christian Political Thought of Medieval Europe: from the Fathers to the Fourteenth Century, p. 525-551 (le mot « Fathers » est utilisé abusivement, dans la mesure où l’unique « Père de l’Église » abordé ici est Isidore de Séville, le dernier de langue latine !).
Le volume se termine sur une bibliographie détaillée des sources et des études citées (p. 553-594) et un index des noms propres, anciens et modernes (p. 595-608). Si l’on considère de plus l’ampleur du sujet et la qualité, en même temps que les dimensions, des différentes études, l’ouvrage se présente en fait comme un manuel de référence et une bonne introduction à la philosophie politique de tradition gréco-islamique. Il vient ainsi enrichir et compléter la bibliothèque qui s’est progressivement accumulée, ces dernières décennies autour de la question.
Adel Sidarus
Université d’Evora

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vUA05cpGz8q7urg

The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius, 2014
By: Gabor, Gary

Title	The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume	4
Issue	2
Pages	99-112
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This topic would also animate later interpreters of Aristotle, sometimes with positive and sometimes more critical results. Kant, for instance, rejected Aristotle’s list for what he perceived as its capricious and arbitrary nature, arguing that Aristotle “had no principle” and merely “rounded them up as he stumbled upon them.” In fact, Kant was neither the first nor the last to perceive that Aristotle’s account of the categories needed some sort of justification. The existence of rival categorial schemes, in particular, demands it. In the ancient world, the Stoics provided a fourfold series of categories, and Plato provided a fivefold set of greatest kinds in the Sophist. More recently, E. J. Lowe has defended another fourfold Aristotelian-inspired ontology as fundamental.

For Platonists of late antiquity, the question of justification for Aristotle’s categories had special force following Plotinus’s analysis and critique of them, along with the Stoic, Platonic, and other accounts in Enneads 6.1–2. Plotinus’s student Porphyry later defended and commented on Aristotle’s Categories, and Iamblichus reinterpreted and included the Categories in the philosophical curriculum that was to remain standard in the Neoplatonic schools for several centuries.

For the Neoplatonic commentators working in these schools, one of the first questions raised in their commentaries was the justification that could be given to Aristotle’s tenfold scheme. I shall examine two such justifications: those given by Ammonius Hermiae, scholarch of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, during the second half of the fifth century AD, and his student Simplicius, the last great commentator in the Athenian Academy before its closure by Emperor Justinian in AD 529.

Ammonius’s account of the categories is relatively simple, while Simplicius’s is more complex. Both, however, argue for a justification of the ten categories presented by Aristotle as in some sense a correct list. By comparing the two accounts, one can discern a distinct development in Neoplatonic justifications of Aristotle’s categories. [introduction p. 99-101]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mg1q6H4L6heepIU

Title	The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2007
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston
Publisher	Brill
Series	Philosophia Antiqua
Volume	107
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	D'Ancona Costa, Cristina
Translator(s)

The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Adnom07DPUlmcQv

The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources, 2016
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages	295-326
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Here, therefore, are the conclusions to which one might be led as regards Simplicius’ works. We have extant: the commentaries on Epictetus’ Encheiridion, on Aristotle’s De Caelo, Physics, Categories, and probably on his De Anima. Lost, though attested in a more or less certain fashion: a commentary on the first book of Euclid’s Elements, a commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, a commentary on Iamblichus’ work devoted to the Pythagorean sect, an epitome of Theophrastus’ Physics (if the commentary on the De Anima, where one finds a reference to this work, is authentic), and perhaps a commentary on Hermogenes’ Tekhnê. [conclusion p. 326]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SguvcKAd2fhClm6

The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran, 2002
By: Walker, Joel Thomas

Title	The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Ancient World
Volume	33
Issue	1
Pages	45–69
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Walker, Joel Thomas
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Integrating the Sasanian Empire into the study of late antiquity will be a difficult task. A variety of obstacles, outlined in section II above, beset the study of Sasanian history, and substantial linguistic barriers limit access to the Sasanian world for scholars trained in the Greco-Roman sources. Modern political geography has also proved to be a major barrier for historians and archaeologists interested in regions "east of Byzantium." In the current gap between Sasanian and late Roman history, however, lies also much potential for future research. To develop a more interdisciplinary vision of late antiquity, scholars will need to explore more closely the connections and contrasts between the worlds of Byzantium and Sasanian Iran. Some progress in this direction has been made in the fields of military, diplomatic, and economic history; far more work needs to be done in the areas of cultural and intellectual history, not least the history of philosophy. The recent collapse of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s has reminded us how quickly changes in contemporary geography can lead to comparable shifts in the conceptualization of historical geography. The world of late antiquity may also look very different, if and when more scholars have greater access to travel, teach, and again conduct archaeological fieldwork in Iraq, Iran, and neighboring countries.

The emergence of the field of late antiquity represents a major opportunity for Sasanian history, precisely because it invites us to look across the traditional disciplinary division between Mediterranean and Near Eastern history. Modern interpretations of the philosophers’ journey to the court of Khosrow Anoshirvan in 531/532 C.E. reveal how often this disciplinary division has obscured the richness of intellectual life at the late Sasanian court, as well as the intensity of its contacts with Greek and Syrian intellectuals. From Gibbon through Bury and down to Alan Cameron’s influential article on the "Closing of the Academy," there has been a strong tendency among Greco-Roman historians to give too much credence to Agathias’ hostile depiction of Sasanian philhellenism. Near Eastern historians, such as Rawlinson and Christensen, and the occasional Byzantinist such as Jean-François Duneau, have offered more optimistic readings of Khosrow’s philosophical patronage, but without sufficient attention to the tensions involved in the Sasanian encounter with Hellenism. The task that lies ahead, building on the work of Michel Tardieu, is to explain the precise quality of Sasanian Hellenism, its social and political context, cultural milieu, and intellectual legacy. The career of Uranius, and the modern debate over the peregrinations of Damascius, prove that this investigation must include not only Athens, Alexandria, and Constantinople, but also Ctesiphon, Harran, and Gondishapur. Khosrow’s patronage of Greek philosophers thus reveals the advantages, indeed the necessity, of a world of late antiquity that includes the whole of the Sasanian and early Islamic Near East. [conclusion p. 67-69]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVLAM9PVkGxCgRz

The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī, 2008
By: Chase, Michael, Newton, Lloyd A. (Ed.)

Title	The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2008
Published in	Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories
Pages	9-29
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chase, Michael
Editor(s)	Newton, Lloyd A.
Translator(s)

The particular parallels we have noted between Thomas and al-Fārābī may be indicative of a deeper similarity, which Simplicius’ commentaries, including that on the Categories, may help to explain.

In a reversal of traditional viewpoints, recent commentators have argued that the philosophies of both Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī, usually considered as followers of the Peripatetic school, are in fact basically Platonist. Paradoxically, however, the same scholars have also argued that neither of these philosophers had actually read Plato. This odd situation can be explained by the nature of the sources of both Thomas and al-Fārābī, which present definite similarities. Neither had access to complete translations of the works of Plato. Both were consequently forced to rely on the works of Aristotle, but this was an Aristotelian corpus quite unlike the one studied in the West today.

It included works—the Liber de Causis was most influential in Thomas’ case, while the Theology of Aristotle may have played an analogous role in the case of al-Fārābī—which we now know to be apocryphal compilations of Neoplatonic texts deriving from Proclus, Plotinus, and possibly Porphyry. Equally importantly, however, it included Neoplatonic commentaries on the genuine works of Aristotle, including those by Simplicius.

As we have glimpsed, the philosophy of both al-Fārābī and Thomas Aquinas is profoundly influenced by the kind of Neoplatonizing interpretation of Aristotle that fills the commentaries of Simplicius, Ammonius, Themistius, and other late antique professors of philosophy. These commentaries are the source of most of the common elements in their thought, the most crucial of which is no doubt the idea of the ultimate reconcilability of Plato and Aristotle. According to both Thomas and al-Fārābī, both Plato and Aristotle teach that there is a single divine cause that perpetually distributes being to all entities in a continuous, graded hierarchy.

There are, of course, also profound differences in the ways Thomas and al-Fārābī interpreted and utilized the doctrines they both received from the Alexandrian commentators. For Thomas, who (certainly indirectly) follows Iamblichus in this regard, philosophy occupies a subordinate position within theology, while for al-Fārābī, whatever his genuine religious beliefs may have been, philosophy remains the nec plus ultra, capable of providing ultimate happiness through conjunction with the Agent Intellect.

The contrasting attitudes of Thomas and al-Fārābī may, in turn, be traceable to a similar contrast within late antique Neoplatonism. Porphyry of Tyre was considered by his successors to have held that philosophy alone was sufficient for salvation, consisting in the soul’s definitive return to the intelligible world whence it came, while Iamblichus placed the emphasis on the need for religion, in the form of theurgical operations and prayers, and the grace of the gods.

What seems to have been at stake in the arguments between the two was ultimately no less than the nature of philosophy: is it the ultimate discipline, sufficient for happiness, as Porphyry held, or is it merely an ancilla theologiae, as was the view of Iamblichus? Thomas and al-Fārābī, who had at least some knowledge of these debates through the intermediary of such sources as Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories, seem to have prolonged this controversy, Thomas siding with Iamblichus and al-Fārābī with Porphyry.

Wayne Hankey has written:

    "Not only for both [Iamblichus and Aquinas] is philosophy contained within theology, and theology contained within religion, but also, for both, centuries its great teachers are priests and saints. In order to be doing philosophy as spiritual exercise belonging to a way of life, we need not engage directly in self-knowledge."

Such ideas were anathema to Porphyry, the other great Neoplatonist whose ideas were transmitted to posterity by, among other sources, Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories. For the Tyrian thinker, as for al-Fārābī writing some six centuries after him, philosophy is not subordinate to religion, nor are its teachers priests or saints, but it is autonomous and capable, all by itself, of ensuring human felicity both in this life and the next.

Philosophy for Porphyry was indeed a way of life, an important part of which was reading and commenting on the philosophical texts of the ancient Masters. For Porphyry, however, who wrote a treatise On the “Know thyself”, as for the entire ancient tradition which, as Pierre Hadot has shown, considered philosophy to be a way of life, self-knowledge was the indispensable starting-point for all philosophy.

Indeed, one may question whether this was not the case for Iamblichus as well: it was he, after all, who established the First Alcibiades as the first Platonic dialogue to be read and studied in the Neoplatonic curriculum; but the skopos or goal of this dialogue, for Iamblichus, was none other than self-knowledge.

Whatever may have been Iamblichus’ particular view, the Hellenic tradition on the whole was unanimous on the crucial importance of self-knowledge as the starting-point for philosophical education.

When in 946 the traveler al-Mas‘ūdī visited Harrān in Mesopotamia, center of the pagan Sābians, he saw, inscribed on the door-knocker of the central temple, an inscription in Syriac reading “He who knows his nature becomes god,” which is, as Tardieu was the first to recognize, a reference to Plato’s Alcibiades 133 C.

When we recall that, according to some of his biographers, al-Fārābī went to Harrān at about the time of al-Mas‘ūdī’s visit to complete his studies of the Aristotelian Organon, one is not surprised to find that self-knowledge is as essential for al-Fārābī as it was for Porphyry, with several of whose works the Second Master seems to have been familiar.

In al-Fārābī’s noetics, the potential intellect (al-‘aql bi’l-quwwah) becomes an intellect in act (al-‘aql bi’l-fi‘l) when, by abstracting the forms in matter from their material accompanying circumstances, it receives these disembodied forms within itself.

Unlike the forms stamped in wax, however, which affect only the surface of the receptive matter, these forms penetrate the potential intellect so thoroughly that it becomes identical with the forms it has intelligized. Once it has intelligized all such intelligible forms, the intellect becomes, in act, the totality of intelligibles.

The human intellect has thus become an intelligible, and when it intelligizes itself, it becomes an intelligible in act. Thus, for the soul, or rather the soul’s intellect, to know itself is to become, quite literally, identical with its essence, and it can henceforth intelligize all other separate intelligibles—that is, those that have never been in conjunction with matter—in the same way as it knows its own essence.

This occurs at the third of al-Fārābī’s four levels or kinds of intellection, the intellectus adeptus (al-‘aql al-mustafād).

Thus, for al-Fārābī, self-knowledge plays a crucial role both at the beginning and at a fairly advanced stage of philosophical progress. At the outset, the student must, with the help of an experienced professor, look within himself to find the first intelligibles innate within him which, once elaborated, clarified, and classified, will serve as the premises of the syllogisms he will use as the starting-point of his logical deductions.

At a later stage, when through abstraction he has accumulated a sufficient number of intelligibles, he will know his own intellect, and therefore himself, thoroughly. This in turn is the precondition for being able to know the intelligible Forms and separate intelligences which, unlike the material forms incorporated in the sensible world, have never been in conjunction with matter.

The way is henceforth open for the permanent conjunction with the Agent Intellect which, according to al-Fārābī, constitutes felicity: that felicity which, for al-Fārābī as for Simplicius, is the only goal and justification for doing philosophy. [conclusion p. 25-29]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yzntZRUqTC8wnrp

The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”?, 2019
By: Chriti, Maria, Golitsis, Pantelis (Ed.), Ierodiakonou, Katerina (Ed.)

Title	The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”?
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2019
Published in	Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia
Pages	95-106
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Chriti, Maria
Editor(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina
Translator(s)

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the “fall”of the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul’s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul’s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul’s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of ‘diversity’in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of ‘decay’and ‘obligation’. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP

The Neoplatonic Socrates, 2014
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)

Title	The Neoplatonic Socrates
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Philadelphia
Publisher	University of Pennsylvania Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)

In The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.

Contributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, François Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.
[official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn

The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid,

Title	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2006
Publication Place	Berlin – New York
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)	Chernoglazov, Alexander(Chernoglazov, Alexander)

Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Schüler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark überarbeitete Übersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz über die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr

The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts, 2009
By: Bonazzi, Mauro (Ed.), Opsomer, Jan (Ed.)

Title	The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2009
Publication Place	Louvain – Namur – Paris – Walpole, MA
Publisher	Éditions Peeters. Société des études classique
Series	Collection d'Études Classiques
Volume	23
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan
Translator(s)

From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX

The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy, 2008
By: Curd, Patricia (Ed.), Graham, Daniel W. (Ed.)

Title	The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2008
Publication Place	New York
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W.
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vobizazZn2VOG2v

The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle, 2005
By: Hubler, J. Noel

Title	The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	The Review of Metaphysics
Volume	59
Issue	2
Pages	287-311
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hubler, J. Noel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle's brief consideration of self-perception engaged in an extensive discussion of the problem, offering various interpretations of apperception from the second to sixth century. The commentators modeled their explanation of self-awareness in perception on their understanding of the nature of knowledge in general and their notion of what the core meaning of truth was. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XGXaGpEPq3YahVv

The Peripatetics: Aristotle’s Heirs 322 BCE - 200 CE, 2016
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	The Peripatetics: Aristotle’s Heirs 322 BCE - 200 CE
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2016
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

 The Peripatetics explores the development of Peripatetic thought from Theophrastus and Strato to the work of the commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias. The book examines whether the internal dynamics of this philosophical school allowed for a unity of Peripatetic thought, or whether there was a fundamental tension between philosophical creativity and the notions of core teachings and canonisation. The book discusses the major philosophical preoccupations of the Peripatetics, interactions with Hellenistic schools of thought, and the shift in focus among Greek philosophers in a changing political landscape. It is the first book of its kind to provide a survey of this important philosophical tradition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sUfFKmXdreu0SDf

The Philosophy of the Commentators 200–600 AD: A Sourcebook; I: Psychology (with Ethics and Religion); II: Physics; III: Logic and Metaphysics, 2005
By: Sorabji, Richard

Title	The Philosophy of the Commentators 200–600 AD: A Sourcebook; I: Psychology (with Ethics and Religion); II: Physics; III: Logic and Metaphysics
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	London
Publisher	Duckworth
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This is the first work to draw on the four hundred years of transition from ancient Greek philosophy to the medieval philosophy of Islam and the West. During this period, philosophy was often written in the form of commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle. Many ideas wrongly credited to the Middle Ages derive from these centuries, such as that of impetus in dynamics and intentional objects in philosophy of mind.

The later Neoplatonist commentators fought a losing battle with Christianity, but inadvertently made Aristotle acceptable to Christians by ascribing to him belief in a Creator God and human immortality. The commentators provide a panorama of up to a thousand years of Greek philosophy, much of which would otherwise be lost. They also serve as the missing link essential for understanding the subsequent history of Western philosophy.

Volume 1 deals with psychology, which for the Neoplatonist commentators was the gateway to metaphysics and theology. It was the subject on which Plato and Aristotle disagreed most, and on which the commentators went furthest beyond them in their search for synthesis. Ethics and religious practice fall naturally under psychology and are included in this volume.

All sources appear in English translation and are carefully linked and cross-referenced by editorial comment and explanation. Bibliographies are provided throughout.

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A2jZ42ng1GKqaG1

The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach, 2002
By: Gersh, Stephen (Ed.), Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. (Ed.)

Title	The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2002
Publication Place	Berlin
Publisher	de Gruyter
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Gersh, Stephen , Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M.
Translator(s)

Das Handbuch beschreitet neue Wege in der Schilderung der komplexen Geschichte jener geistigen Strömungen, die gemeinhin unter der Bezeichnung 'platonisch' bzw. 'neuplatonisch' zusammengefaßt werden. Es behandelt in chronologischer Folge die bedeutendsten philosophischen Denkrichtungen innerhalb dieser Tradition. Die Beiträge untersuchen die wichtigsten platonischen Begriffe und ihre semantischen Implikationen, erläutern die mit ihnen verbundenen philosophischen und theologischen Ansprüche, legen die Quellen der Begriffe dar und stellen sie in den Kontext der auf sie rekurrierenden bzw. ihnen zuwiderlaufenden geistigen Traditionen. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Bild des intellektuellen Lebens im Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Das Werk enthält Beiträge in englischer und deutscher Sprache. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AyyoAnYvbV6wAyu

The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research, 2005
By: Baltussen, Han

Title	The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Studia Humaniora Tartuensia
Volume	6
Issue	6
Pages	1-26
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is,  the  study  of  the  nature,  transmission  and  interrelations  of  sources  for  ancient  Greek  philosophy.  The  latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OYlxoMJYDjcTIPa

The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, 2014
By: Remes, Pauliina (Ed.), Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (Ed.)

Title	The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	London – New York
Publisher	Routledge
Series	Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla
Translator(s)

The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:

    (Re)sources, instruction and interaction
    Methods and Styles of Exegesis
    Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives
    Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self
    Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology
    Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics
    The legacy of Neoplatonism.

The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S

The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis, 2018
By: Steel, C., Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	185-223
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, C.
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

Even Platonists, it seems, have to accept that the intellective soul, when connected to this earthy body, can never be entirely without imagination, not only in (1) practical thought or in (2) understanding sensible objects or in (3) mathematics, but even in its most excellent thought, (4) the contemplation of the intelligible forms. The role of imagination is, however, different in the four cases, as we have seen. Therefore, a good philosophical teacher will not only warn his students of the danger of imaginations, which may distort their thoughts, but also helps them to train and discipline their imagination so that it may be an obedient servant of the intellect. For that reason, he will use images and fantastic stories besides rational arguments. As Proclus explains in his introduction to his commentary of the myth of Er:

The souls, which are by essence intellectual and full of incorporeal and intellectual reasons, have put on (ἐνδυσαμέναις) the imaginative intellect and cannot live without it in this place of generation [...] – for these souls, which have become impassible passible and without figures figurative (γενομέναις ἀπαθέσι παθητικαῖς, ἀμορφώτοις μορφωτικαῖς) this teaching through myths [as here in the myth of Er] is appropriate.

Myths are particularly needed for those who only live according to imagination and only have practised the passive intellect, as is the case with the vulgar masses, who are incapable of following a purely rational argument. By contrast, some exceptional souls, which have set their mind on pure intellections, will be content with the intellectual light of the truth without needing the imaginary mise-en-scène of myths. But for us, Proclus says, who are ‘both together and have a twofold intellect’, the one which we really are and the one we have put on and projected outwards (i.e. the passive intellect linked to imagination), we find pleasures both in the fictive clothing of the story and in its deeper truth. Whereas the imaginative intellect ‘is stricken by the external and becomes thus ready for the path towards science,’ our true intellect ‘is nourished by what is inside the stories and becomes the contemplator of truth.’ [conclusion p. 211-212]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iQkklQKce7ANXjV

The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits, 2009
By: Eunyoung Ju, Anna

Title	The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2009
Journal	Phronesis
Volume	54
Issue	4/5
Pages	371-389
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Eunyoung Ju, Anna
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both
as a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological
taxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their
discussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical,
tending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept,
as a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical
Stoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This
apparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no
consensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers
in detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the
evidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on
this topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained
between the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so
disagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were
actually positions that might be called "standard" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In
attempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain
features of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late
Stoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the
school's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct,
and, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the
school's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last
notion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be
traced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking,
namely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author’s abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/H3kH3u3PbGnOPyE

The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius, 2024
By: Steel, Carlos, Deckers, Daniel (Ed.), Brockmann, Christian (Ed.), Valente, Stefano (Ed.)

Title	The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2024
Published in	Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit
Pages	225-268
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Deckers, Daniel , Brockmann, Christian , Valente, Stefano
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/r4x9UiKcqVzpdhL

The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius, 2024
By: Steel, Carlos, Christian Brockmann (Ed.), Daniel Deckers (Ed.), Stefano Valente (Ed.)

Title	The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2024
Published in	Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit
Pages	225-268
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Christian Brockmann , Daniel Deckers , Stefano Valente
Translator(s)

About fifty years ago I published together with Fernand Bossier an article todemonstrate  that  theCommentary On the Soultraditionally  attributed  toSimplicius was not his work, but most probably that of a fellow member ofthe Athenian Academy, Priscian of Lydia.1An examination of the text tradi-tion of the commentary did not yield any indications to question the tradi-tional attribution. Nevertheless, arguments based on style, content, self-refer-ences are so convincing that it is now commonly accepted that the author ofthe commentary is not Simplicius.2The Hamburg colloquium offered me theincentive for a new and comprehensive study of the complicated text tradi-tion of this commentary, which enjoyed an extraordinary fortune in the re-ception of Aristotle’s treatiseOn the Soulamong Byzantine and Renaissancescholars.3For practical reasons, I keep using in this contribution the author’sname ‘Simplicius’ as it is known in the tradition but put it between singlequotations marks to distinguish him from the real Simplicius. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j1NGkXq4FVGx9hw

The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus’ Canon, 2016
By: Hatzimichali, Myrto, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus’ Canon
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	81-102
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hatzimichali, Myrto
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

If we recall at this point the information gathered on the state of Plato’s text in the first century BCE, we can see that by comparison the study of Aristotle’s text was indeed revolutionized. In the case of the Aristotelian corpus, our sources tell a story of true peripeteia, with the appearance of new texts or at least new copies with special claims of antiquity and pedigree, and with the standardization and ordering of the canon in Andronicus’ Pinakes.

A scrutiny of our sources has shown that it was the processes of cataloging, canon formation, and corpus organization that had the greatest impact on the texts we now read, and not the appearance of new ‘editions’ and text-critical initiatives. If this appears counterintuitive, we should remember that judgments about the importance or otherwise of ancient editorial activity can be misleading if they are too dependent on modern experiences and expectations. [conclusion p. 102]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hzJ6JONomuuLaQX

The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle, 2006
By: Sorabji, Richard, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)

Title	The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	Reading Plato in antiquity
Pages	185-193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)	Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)

Harmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23–32). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).

As an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle’s categories from Plotinus’ objections in Enneads VI.1–3. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle’s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle’s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7–8, 58.5–7, and 91.19–27) that Aristotle’s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle’s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization—whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian—ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle’s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle’s human soul into an immortal one.

There can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.

In fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.

I should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm

The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us, 2014
By: Wildberg, Christian, Destrée, Pierre (Ed.), Zingano, Marco (Ed.)

Title	The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2014
Published in	What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy
Pages	329-350
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s)	Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd

The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius, 2020
By: Ross, Alberto

Title	The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote
Pages	103-122
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ross, Alberto
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GNIHfMbbi3GaOjc

The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy, 2020
By: Ulacco, Angela

Title	The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy
Type	Book Section
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Published in	Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc
Pages	183-214
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Ulacco, Angela
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century, 2002
By: Leijenhorst, Cees (Ed.), Lüthy, Christoph (Ed.), Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H. (Ed.)

Title	The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2002
Publication Place	Leiden – Boston – Köln
Publisher	Brill
Series	Medieval and early modern science
Volume	5
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.
Translator(s)

This book explores the dynamics of the commentary and textbook traditions in Aristotelian natural philosophy under the headings of doctrine, method, and scientific and social status. It enquires what the evolution of the Aristotelian commentary tradition can tell us about the character of natural philosophy as a pedagogical tool, as a scientific enterprise, and as a background to modern scientific thought. In a unique attempt to cut old-fashioned historiographic divisions, it brings together scholars of ancient, medieval, Renaissance and seventeenth-century philosophy. The book covers a remarkably broad range of topics: it starts with the first Greek commentators and ends with Leibniz.  [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OLB13j4YVPx0XVb

The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, 2018
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories
Type	Monograph
Language	English
Date	2018
Publication Place	Leuven
Publisher	KU Leuven, Humanities and Social Sciences Group, Institute of Philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

but implicitly deviates from the assumption held by many Aristotelian scholars that
synonymous predication yields essential predication. He argues that, although genera, species and differentiae are all synonymously predicated of that which is beneath them, only genera and species are also essentially predicated of that which is beneath them whereas the
differentiae are not essentially but qualitatively predicated of that which is beneath them. It
also becomes apparent in the second part that the study of quality in Simplicius’ Commentary
on Aristotle’s Categories includes an analysis of the relation between quality and the
qualified. The differentiation of the possible meanings of the qualified represents the basis, or
preparatory work, for such an analysis.
The third part of the study exceeds to some extent the categorial framework and expands on
the Neoplatonic elements of Simplicius’ explanation of quality and its relation to the
qualified. In this regard, it also elaborates on certain notions that have already been introduced
in the second part but become most relevant in the context of an analysis of the relation
between quality and the qualified within a Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The notion
of participation is one of them. Simplicius does not only present participation, like predication, as a model to explain the relation between intracategorial entities in his
omments on chapter five but he also explicitly applies it to the entities subsumed under the
category of quality, when he refers to the quality as μετεχόμενον and to the qualified as
μετέχον. Simplicius associates quality and the qualified with these two elements of the
Neoplatonic triad of participation and analogically applies the characteristics of those elements (and their relation to each other) to quality and the qualified (and their relation to
each other). For an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified, it was thus
helpful to have a closer look at the structure of the triad of participation, and especially at its
elements, their characteristics and their relations to each other. The association of quality with
the μετεχόμενον and of the qualified with the μετέχον, however, transfers a problem to the
category of quality that Simplicius, like other Neoplatonists, mainly discusses in the course of
his comments on the category of substance: the question of ontological dependence and,
particularly, whether the ontological relation between quality and the qualified is a relation of
ontological priority and posteriority or of ontological simultaneity. Simplicius describes
quality as that which is participated in by the qualified, as that which is in the qualified and of
which its being and its being participated in is one. The qualified in turn participates in quality
and receives its being qualified from the quality. Simplicius thus appears to describe the
relation between quality and the qualified, on the one hand, as a relation of an ontological
priority of the quality over the qualified and, on the other hand, as a relation of ontological simultaneity. It has been shown in the third part of the study that it is possible to reconcile
these apparently conflicting assumptions in Simplicius by means of two disambiguations:
first, the differentiation of ontological priority into existential priority and essential priority
and, second, the distinction between qualified qua single instantiation of the corresponding
quality and qualified qua sum of all instantiations of the corresponding quality. While these investigations of the relation between quality and the qualified conducted in the first two
chapters of the third part of the study involve the understanding of the qualified as an
instantiation of the corresponding quality, the analyses of the third and fourth chapter involve
the understanding of the qualified as a qualified substance. If the qualified is understood as a qualified substance, an analysis of the relation between
quality and the qualified evokes several questions. The third chapter deals with the following
two: first, how can differences among participants of the same quality be explained, i.e. what
is the reason for gradual differences of participation or instantiations and, second, how can it be explained that a particular quality is instantiated in one substance rather than in another substance, i.e. what is the condition for participation as such. In order to answer these
questions, the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης becomes crucial. This notion had already been
introduced in the second part of the study in the course of an analysis of the more and the less
in the category of quality. As stated, Simplicius connects this question with the idea that
participation involves latitude. The latitude of participation, in turn, is in accordance with the
participant’s ἐπιτηδειότης to receive the information from that in which it participates. The use of the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in the context of the analysis of the relation between quality
and qualified has its roots in the use of ἐπιτηδειότης in the theory of participation established by Simplicius’ predecessors, where it frequently occurs as an aspect of the explanation of the
relation between μετεχόμενον and μετέχον. However, the question whether ἐπιτηδειότης is
a technical term in late Antiquity or a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις
has been a subject of debate among scholars. Since also Simplicius uses these two terms,
especially in his comments on the category of quality, I tried to clarify Simplicius’ understanding of ἐπιτηδειότης and of the relation between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his
comments on quality. The analysis in the third chapter suggested that Simplicius distinguishes
between a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of
δύναμις and a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that cannot be associated with the Aristotelian notion of
δύναμις. Ἐπιτηδειότης in the latter sense is simpler, precedes δύναμις and appears to be a
simple propensity of the participant for something more complete than itself, rooted in higher principles within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The difficulty that this analysis
faced was the fact that, although it was suggested by Simplicius’ remarks, Simplicius himself
does not explicitly distinguish between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his comments on the category of quality. As I argued, however, this fact could be interpreted again as a strategy to
accommodate and harmonize the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian theory. The fourth and last chapter deals with another important question that arises in the framework
of an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified qua qualified substance. Based
on the possibility to distinguish between attributes that always belong to their subjects and are
even completive or essential to their subject and attributes that are adventitious to their
subject, the question of the categorial status of essential qualities arises. While the
classification of adventitious attributes as accidents appears to be more or less unproblematic, the integration of completive attributes into Aristotle’s categorial scheme poses a problem.
The answer to this question builds on the results of the previous analyses and eventually leads
to the attempt to present a comprehensive answer to the initial question of the categorial status
and the ontological explanation of qualities (both essential and adventitious qualities) in
Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories.
By means of an analysis of different passages on, or involving, essential qualities and a
comparison with Simplicius’ conception of differentiae, I argued against the claim held by
scholars that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as substances. According to the
interpretation presented in the fourth chapter, Simplicius ascribes both a substantial and a
qualitative aspect to essential qualities and differentiae. Depending on the context, he stresses
the one or the other aspect. Simplicius, a proponent of the idea that Aristotle’s categorial
scheme is complete and exhaustive, does not appear to think that these entities would not fit
into Aristotle’s scheme. Rather, Simplicius explains their double structure by their participation in both substance and quality. He does not discuss or even problematize the fact that such a conception would challenge Aristotle’s scheme. Interestingly, Simplicius’ assumption that these entities are substantial but no substances also suggests that he distinguishes between that which is substantial and that which is a substance. Although
Simplicius undoubtedly conceives of those qualities as being substantial, he appears to
distinguish them from substances and restricts the latter to matter, form and the matter-form
compound. By means of a recourse to Proclus’ remarks in his Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, I tried to show that such a distinction including essential qualities can already be
found among Simplicius’ predecessors. Moreover, I tried to present an ontological explanation of qualities that takes Simplicius’ remarks on both essential and adventitious qualities into account. I argued that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as belonging to
the immanent form which sends forth these qualities as soon as it unfolds itself in body. These
qualities thus naturally inhere in the subject and cannot be separated without the corruption of
the subject. Adventitious qualities are immanent logoi which do not belong to the form. They
enter the subject after the compounding of matter and form; or in other words, the participation in these logoi is posterior to the constitution of the subject. In this way, they
come in from outside and can be separated without the corruption of the subject. However,
they do not appear to operate independently from the immanent form. The immanent form
prefigures the subject, limits its possibilities in participation and determines its capacities for
receiving contraries. It thereby establishes the conditions for these logoi to operate. As it has
been pointed out, Simplicius does not transfer the distinction between essential and adventitious to the level of natural logoi and, consequently, does not make the logos of each
quality twofold. On the contrary, he restricts this distinction to the realm of bodies and can
thus maintain the assumption that the logos of each quality is one. This account is an attempt to provide a consistent explanation of qualities in Simplicius’
Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. However, it leaves a number of questions open for
further research. One group of questions concerns the relation between essential qualities and
differentiae. As stated, Simplicius does not only treat them similarly, he also often uses the
same examples for essential qualities and differentiae. This situation is probably the reason why scholars on Simplicius have discussed these topics together (with different results
though). However, if both differentiae and essential qualities are substantial and belong to the
form but are not substances, the question arises how their differences can be explained. One
of these differences is that, according to Simplicius, an essential quality, such as the whiteness
of snow, can admit of a more and a less, whereas no differentia admits of a more and a less. A
related question regarding differentiae is the following: if the differentiae are intermediates
and participate in both substance and quality, why is there actually no differentia that admits
of a more and a less? Is there, eventually, perhaps a distinction or hierarchy among essential
attributes? On the basis of the analysis of essential and adventitious qualities, Simplicius’
conception of immanent forms is a topic that is highly interesting and would deserve further
investigation. According to the analysis conducted in the last chapter, both essential qualities
and adventitious qualities depend on immanent forms. The former do so because they belong
to this form, the latter because the immanent form prefigures the subject and thus determines
what qualities it can receive and to what extent it can receive them. In connection with this
topic, it would also be interesting to investigate the question as to what there are natural logoi of. Another highly interesting topic linked to the research conducted in this study would be
the comparison of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s
Categories with the presentation of material properties in the framework of a discussion of
Plato’s geometric atomism included in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus and Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo. Such a comparison could be very interesting because it may contribute to the clarification of strategies that some Neoplatonists
have adopted in order to deal with the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories about elemental constitution (including elemental properties) and may thus contribute to our understanding of Neoplatonic natural philosophy in general. Although I think that this
comparison is highly interesting, I have focused in this study on Simplicius’ explanation of
qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. I hope that the preceding pages have shown that this explanation was worth a study of its own. [conclusion, pp. 215-223]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fn4WmTxOpxJfuVO

The historiographical project of the Lyceum, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid

Title	The historiographical project of the Lyceum
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Pages	117-165
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their "perfection" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the prôtos heuretês principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato’s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century.

The key notion of Aristotle’s systematics was epistēmē, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle’s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental.

Each of these "histories" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of "principles" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge.

This perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus’ works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary.
[conclusion p. 164-165]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH

The history of astronomy, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid

Title	The history of astronomy
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Pages	228-277
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Interesting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus’ and Theophrastus’ material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time.

Let us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus’ work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate.

The number of books in the History of Astronomy (Ἀστρολογικῆς ἱστορίας α'-ς') as given in Theophrastus’ catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus’ theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus’ disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus’ rendering of Callippus’ theory.

Hence, Simplicius’ evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus’ work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius’ three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147).

All this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus’ work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out.

As for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius’ predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus’ Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus’ exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus’ works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time.

Generally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus’ summary of Posidonius’ Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand!

In the case of Eudemus, the commentator’s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus’ theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter’s work is not available (οὔτε δὲ Καλλίππου φέρεται σύγγραμμα), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (Εὔδημος δὲ συντόμως ἱστόρησε). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus’ book, was at Simplicius’ disposal.

Further, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then “amplified” him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus.

Another possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes’ work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus’ system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted.

Hence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions.
[introduction p. 228-230]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csHTzFsKJd5J17a

The history of geometry, 2006
By: Zhmud, Leonid

Title	The history of geometry
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity
Pages	166-214
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Zhmud, Leonid
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

While Eudemus’ Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus’ works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus’ works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener’s suggestion that these were Eudemus’ works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus’ list.

In the same list, we find another work, Τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἱστορίας α'-ς', which, contrary to Wehrli’s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus’ History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus’ historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus’ catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus’ physical doxography and Meno’s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle’s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322/1 (Aristotle’s death).

The majority of those who have studied Eudemus’ theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter’s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle’s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences.

There is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus’ History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity.

Although Eudemus’ works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus’ failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed.

Meanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature.

Eratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus’ theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle’s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius.

Thus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL

The interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition, 2017
By: Hauer, Mareike, D'Anna, Giuseppe (Ed.), Fossati, Lorenzo (Ed.)

Title	The interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2017
Published in	Categories. Histories and Perspectives
Pages	35-48
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)	D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo
Translator(s)

The present contribution focuses on two aspects of the Neoplatonic exegesis of Aristotle’s Categories: 1) the question of the Categories’ aim or purpose and 2) the understanding of the Aristotelian categories as predicates. In order to shed light on the first question, we will have a closer look at the Neoplatonic debate on the Categories’ σκοπός, i.e., its aim or purpose. The determination of a treatise’s σκοπός was conceived to be of utmost importance by Neoplatonists. Simplicius, for example, says:

“For the goal (σκοπός), once correctly identified, defines and rectifies our thought, so that we are not vainly transported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.”¹

However, while many Neoplatonists agree on the importance of the σκοπός, they do not agree on the content of the Categories’ σκοπός. We will have a closer look at Simplicius’ presentation of the different positions, as he deals with them individually and discusses them thoroughly. However, we will also compare it with the remarks by other Neoplatonists.

There are extensive and comprehensive scholarly articles that deal with the σκοπός debate in Neoplatonic commentaries and especially with Simplicius’ presentation of the σκοπός debate (see especially Hoffmann 1987), so that the present contribution should rather be regarded as an overview of, or introduction to, the topic. The contribution, moreover, also aims at connecting the debate with the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Aristotelian categories. Many Neoplatonists conceived of the Aristotelian categories as being only applicable to the sensible realm, i.e., the lowest level within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework.

Interestingly, their presentation of the Aristotelian categories involves different descriptions such as “highest genera,” “highest predicates,” or “common items.” I will focus on the Neoplatonic description of the Aristotelian categories as predicates and the fact that, though Neoplatonists commonly designate the categories as predicates, they do not all refer to the same meaning. For all the descriptions entail different theoretical contexts—participation, predication, and universality—which, in turn, stem from complex doctrinal discussions of different philosophical schools. [introduction p. 35-36]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rAqaBbReFwMMBhs

The notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in Simplicius' discussion of quality, 2016
By: Hauer, Mareike

Title	The notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in Simplicius' discussion of quality
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2016
Journal	Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume	27
Pages	65-83
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper deals with the meaning and function of epitêdeiotês in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, particularly in chapter 8, the discussion of the category of quality. Based on the question as to whether Simplicius uses epitêdeiotês as a technical term or as a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, different passages of chapter 8 will be analyzed and compared with Aristotle's discussion of dynamis. It will be argued that Simplicius distinguishes between two senses of epitêdeiotês, one of which can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of dynamis; the other sense, however, differs from the Aristotelian notion of dynamis and, instead, appears to be in agreement with the use of epitêdeiotês in the theory of participation established by Simplicius' Neoplatonic predecessors. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uZGcu7N3ynTApz0

The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown, 2005
By: Smith, Andrew (Ed.)

Title	The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2005
Publication Place	Oakville
Publisher	The Classical Press of Wales
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Smith, Andrew
Translator(s)

The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb

The text of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts, 2014
By: Tarán, Leonardo

Title	The text of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2014
Journal	Revue d’histoire des textes
Volume	9
Pages	351-358
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper tries to establish that supralinear omicron is not, as most elementary introductions to Greek paleography have it, a simple abbreviation for the ending omicron-sigma. Rather, it was originally a symbol for suspension that later medieval scribes used also for other subordinated purposes which are impossible to classify. Some examples will be given in what follows. For a long time this interpretation had seemed so obvious to me that during a 1985 colloquium on Simplicius in Paris, it surprised me that some members of the audience objected that supralinear omicron is simply an abbreviation for omicron-sigma. As this occurred during my discussion of a passage of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, and as several of my examples come from that work, it is convenient to give a list of the manuscripts used by Diels and also of additional prim ary witnesses either rejected by, or not known to him. [introduction]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/euNEGjD514bsBaT

The use of Stoic references in Simplicius’ discussion of quality, 2023
By: Hauer, Mareike, Ulacco, Angela (Ed.), Joosse, Albert (Ed.)

Title	The use of Stoic references in Simplicius’ discussion of quality
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2023
Published in	Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)	Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert
Translator(s)

The chapter deals with Simplicius’ references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle’s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius’ account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sLNvZJzhvBuIdic

The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius, 2004
By: Lautner, Peter, Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Adamson, Peter (Ed.)

Title	The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	163-174
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Lautner, Peter
Editor(s)	Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter
Translator(s)

That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension.

It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them.

This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.

Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.

Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4

The Ṣābians of Ḥarrān and the Classical Tradition, 2002
By: Pingree, David

Title	The Ṣābians of Ḥarrān and the Classical Tradition
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	International Journal of the Classical Tradition
Volume	9
Issue	1
Pages	8-35
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Pingree, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This article addresses questions concerning the characteristics of the paganism of Harran, its eclectic sources, and its development by examining the relationships - real, possible, and fictitious - of various personalities with the city of Harran from Assyrian times till the Mongol attack in 1271. It is suggested that the Sabians used Neoplatonism, which, if Tardieu's analysis is correct, they originally learned from Simplicius, to develop, explain, and justify their practice of astral magic, and that their interest in the Greek astronomy and astrology that astral magic required served to maintain the study and to preserve the texts of these sciences during the centuries in which they were ignored in Byzantium. It is further shown that the Greek philosophical and scientific material available to them was mingled with elements from ancient Mesopotamia, India, Iran, Judaism, and Egypt to form a syncretic system of belief that they could claim to be mankind's original and authentic religion. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Jdb3AO475p5h4e0

Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements, 2002
By: Bodnár, István M., Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Wöhrle, Georg (Ed.)

Title	Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier
Pages	75-90
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Bodnár, István M.
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Wöhrle, Georg
Translator(s)

Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere—whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle’s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings—and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty.

Accordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus’ assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki

Thomas' Neoplatonic Histories: His following of Simplicius, 2002
By: Hankey, Wayne J.

Title	Thomas' Neoplatonic Histories: His following of Simplicius
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Dionysius
Volume	20
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hankey, Wayne J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Following Simplicius, Thomas set up the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical viae as complementary oppositions each of which contributed to the truth. Thomas also followed
Simplicius in discerning differences between the hermeneutic methods of the two great schools. He reproduced the history of philosophy of Simplicius as soon as he had his commentaries, agreed with many of his conciliating judgments, and used the same reconciling logical figures. He does not identify himself as a Peripatetic or as a Platonist.
However, when he agrees that Aristotle’s way of reasoning, per viam motus, to the existence of
separate substances is manifestior et certior, he is sitting in judgment with, not against, Simplicius. For both the sixth and the thirteenth century commentators, Plato and Aristotle are assimilated to each other in various ways, and the real possibility of any beginning except that from the sensible is excluded. Thomas’ hermeneutic is that of the Platonic tradition in late Antiquity – Thomas certainly thought that the truth was veiled under poetic and symbolic language and judged this to be essential for revealing the truth to humans.
Consistently with this approach, in the exposition of the De Caelo, Aquinas goes so far with
Simplicius as to find “something divine (fabula aliquid divinum continet)” in the myth that Atlas
holds up the heavens.106 He would seem, thus, to be on his way to the reconciliation of religious as well as of philosophical traditions. If this should, in fact, be his intent, Thomas would be following Simplicius and his Neoplatonic predecessors in their deepest purposes. This Christian priest, friar, and saint would have placed himself with the “divine” Proclus among the successors of Plato. [Conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YjEdDURMoq0kV8j

Three Thêtas in the "Empédocle de Strasbourg", 2001
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Mansfeld, Jaap

Title	Three Thêtas in the "Empédocle de Strasbourg"
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2001
Journal	Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume	54
Issue	1
Pages	78-84
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Algra, Keimpe A. , Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with "Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg." The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J

Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité, 2020
By: Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.), Timotin, Andrei (Ed.)

Title	Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité
Type	Edited Book
Language	undefined
Date	2020
Publication Place	Turnhout
Publisher	Brepols
Series	Bibliothèque de l'école des hautes études sciences religieuses
Volume	185
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe , Timotin, Andrei
Translator(s)

Ce livre étudie les différents modes de rapport entre les théories et les pratiques de la prière à la fin de l’Antiquité dans un cadre interdisciplinaire qui réunit des spécialistes de l’histoire religieuse des mondes grec et romain, de la philosophie religieuse tardo-antique et de la littérature patristique. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DNW2qsXjHLZ3scI

Time and the intellect. Philoponus’ polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius’ reply., 2024
By: Jan Opsomer

Title	Time and the intellect. Philoponus’ polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius’ reply.
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2024
Published in	Platon und die Zeit
Pages	181-201
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Jan Opsomer
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Despite this "official" view, the Contra Aristotelem contains passages suggesting that God also thinks sequentially and hence is able to think time as an A-series. This would still not mean, according to Philoponus, that God thinks in time because the sequence in question is not physical. Simplicius does not accept this excuse and does not want to restrict the concept of time in this manner.

The sequence in God's thought fits well with Philoponus’ durational or quasi-temporal conception of eternity. At any rate, whatever one is prepared to call the sequential thinking in which God apparently engages, it is hard to deny that it is in some sense transitional. In order to remain consistent, therefore, Philoponus would also need to concede that the durational eternity in which God lives is not devoid of every type of change. He is not likely to be prepared to make that concession, given his repeated denials of divine transitional thought.

The least one can say is that, in the Contra Aristotelem, there is a tension in Philoponus’ various pronouncements on the divine intellect. Presumably, Philoponus would have restricted this type of sequential or "transitional" divine thought to cases where God is thinking about events that are situated in time (more precisely, in limited time spans, as sempiternal, unchanging objects of thought would not pose a problem). If this is the case, God would still intelligize all eternal, intelligible realities at once. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism, 2005
By: Siniossoglou, Nikētas

Title	Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	KronoScope
Volume	5
Issue	2
Pages	213-235
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Siniossoglou, Nikētas
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper focuses on the late antique conception of time, eternity and perpetual duration and examines the relation between these concepts and Plato’s cosmology. By exploring the controversy between pagan philosophers (Proclus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus) and Christian writers (Aeneas of Gaza, Zacharias of Mytilene, Philoponus) in respect to the interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus, I argue that the Neoplatonic doctrine of the perpetuity (ἀïδιότης) of the world derives from a) the intellectual paradigm presupposed by the conceptual framework of late antiquity and b) the commentators’ principal concern for a coherent conception of Platonic cosmology essentially free from internal contradictions. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/a8bG1lq3yiz1Bl1

Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition, 2011
By: Watts, Edward Jay, Lössl, Josef (Ed.), Watt, John W. (Ed.)

Title	Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2011
Published in	Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad
Pages	137-150
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, Edward Jay
Editor(s)	Lössl, Josef , Watt, John W.
Translator(s)

This paper explores the idea of translating the scholastic social experience by 
briefly considering the projects undertaken by four very different commentators 
active in the 520s and 530s. It begins by looking at Olympiodorus’ commentary 
on Plato’s Gorgias, one of the earliest and least polished works written by this 
productive and long-lived scholar. This commentary at times tends towards the 
informal and, because of this, it opens a window into the dynamics of an ancient 
classroom.  Next, the  argument turns  to  Simplicius’ commentary  on Aristotle’s 
Physics, a work that attempts to divorce completely the writing of a commentary 
from actual classroom experience. Simplicius’ programme shows how an author 
could adapt the commentary genre so that it served as a purely literate endeavour 
that neither reflected lessons once given in a classroom nor suggested a line of 
interpretation that could be directly followed in teaching. Finally, the paper will 
touch upon the very different translation projects undertaken by two contemporary 
transmitters of the Greek commentary tradition. It will initially consider how some 
facets of the project undertaken by Boethius suggest that he anticipates that his 
ideas will not be interpreted in a traditional classroom setting. It will then examine 
the puzzling decision of Sergius of Reshaina to write a Syriac commentary of an 
Aristotelian work for which no Syriac translation existed. This discussion will 
build upon earlier scholarship to show that Sergius probably had direct experience 
studying philosophy in classrooms and expected his work to be used in a classroom 
setting. These observations should allow us to better contextualize and appreciate 
the foundations upon which the medieval Syriac and Latin commentary traditions 
rest. [introduction p. 140]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tWH1ZboTbhA72ad

Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis

Title	Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2007
Journal	Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Volume	100
Issue	2
Pages	637-676
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Récapitulons l'essentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le véritable auteur du commentaire, qui dorénavant doit être attribué à Georges Pachymère.

Nous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire à Psellos descend d'un ancêtre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., écrit à la fin du XIVᵉ siècle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant à un archétype, écrit vers l'an 1300 et aujourd'hui perdu (l'Escorialensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachymère, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer grâce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et à des témoignages du XVIᵉ siècle.

Cet archétype de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a été copié sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachymère, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique.

[Conclusion, p. 676]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VvESFt1BJvfvNnQ

Un commentario alessandrino al «De caelo» di Aristotele, 2013
By: Rescigno, Andrea

Title	Un commentario alessandrino al «De caelo» di Aristotele
Type	Article
Language	Italian
Date	2013
Journal	Athenaeum: Studi di letteratura e Storia dell'antichità
Volume	101
Issue	2
Pages	479-516
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Rescigno, Andrea
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IR153pEdP84QTiX

Un grief antichrétien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en théologie, 2012
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Perrot, Arnaud (Ed.)

Title	Un grief antichrétien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en théologie
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2012
Published in	Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive
Pages	161-197
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Perrot, Arnaud
Translator(s)

Cette perception de la réalité peut sans doute être mise en relation avec une attitude politique prudente de Proclus, qui ne cherchait pas à provoquer les chrétiens en dépit des difficultés, ainsi que l’a justement suggéré H. D. Saffrey. Au début du VIe siècle, les choses changent, la situation des païens s’assombrit encore – en dépit, ou à cause, de la restauration de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Athènes et de l’enseignement philosophique sous la direction de Damascius – et le ton se durcit : le panorama des âges de l’Humanité, dans la Vie d’Isidore de Damascius, qui ouvrait cette enquête, laisse éclater une indignation véhémente contre l’Empire chrétien, qui se retrouve ensuite chez Simplicius. L’on sait ce que fut l’édit de Justinien en 529, et quelles furent ses conséquences.

Mais s’il est une chose qui n’a pas varié, c’est probablement la conscience hautaine que les derniers néoplatoniciens avaient d’être les détenteurs de l’authentique science théologique. Étaient-ils complètement inconscients de la grandeur doctrinale et spirituelle, et de l’ampleur quantitative, de la littérature chrétienne des premiers siècles ? Peut-on penser qu’ils ignoraient vraiment les œuvres de leurs adversaires ? Nous n’entendons que leur silence... [conclusion p. 196-197]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/C6ajOBbEqvD83jH

Un philosophe plus poète (Simplicius, "Com. in Ar. Phys." 24, 20 / DK 12 A 9), 2012
By: Santoro, Fernando

Title	Un philosophe plus poète (Simplicius, "Com. in Ar. Phys." 24, 20 / DK 12 A 9)
Type	Article
Language	French
Date	2012
Journal	Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume	30
Issue	1
Pages	3-22
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Santoro, Fernando
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper is about the meaning and implications for Presocratics' modern exegesis of a comment made by Simplicius about the vocabulary of a passage from Anaximander, which he has just quoted. Simplicius says that Anaximander wrote his sentence about the nature of beings in more poetic terms: ποιητικωτέροις οὕτως ὀνόμασιν αὐτά λέγων.

In their remarks on the passage, Nietzsche and Heidegger not only drew attention to the words and thought of Anaximander but also made us look at that simple comment, that "hiccup" of thought in Simplicius.

What is it for a philosopher to speak in a more poetic way? We propose to understand that it does not imply the use of images or allegories but a very original way of interacting and thinking in universal terms. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CVvGQIdFa7rcFRB

Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19, 2014
By: Licciardi, Ivan Adriano, Cardullo, R. Loredana (Ed.), Iozzia, Daniele (Ed.)

Title	Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19
Type	Book Section
Language	Italian
Date	2014
Published in	ΚΑΛΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΕΤΗ. Bellezza e virtù. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti
Pages	537-549
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Licciardi, Ivan Adriano
Editor(s)	Cardullo, R. Loredana , Iozzia, Daniele
Translator(s)

L'obiettivo che mi propongo di raggiungere in questa mia indagine è duplice: da un lato, cercherò di comprendere il posizionamento di Simplicio in merito a una delicata questione ermeneutica, sollevata da due linee interpretative differenti. L'esegesi del passo aristotelico in questione è considerata da alcuni come filosoficamente indegna della natura oppure no; dall’altro lato, mi adopererò per mettere in luce un aspetto del metodo con cui Simplicio affronta l'interpretazione di Aristotele, ponendo particolare attenzione alla terminologia e al fine della quale egli si confronta con altri esegeti aristotelici, in particolare con Alessandro di Afrodisia e con Porfirio.
Preciso subito che non ricercherò di risolvere la questione concernente il senso aristotelico, al quale intendo dedicare uno studio a parte, ma mi concentrerò piuttosto sull’interpretazione di Simplicio, il quale ricorre frequentemente a questione ermeneutiche al fine di ricostruire il senso genuino del testo di Aristotele. Mi limito dunque a presentare molto brevemente il problema inerente al testo della Fisica.
La critica che Aristotele muove agli Eleati in Fisica I, 2 è nota per la sua problematicità, che riguarda non soltanto le argomentazioni che vengono addotte contro Parmenide e Melisso, ma anche lo statuto complessivo della critica stessa (Phys. I, 2, 184b25-185a14). Aristoteles affermato è che indagare se l’essere è uno e immobile non è indegno della natura, e che, comunque, non lo è se presupposto dalla fisica aristotelica, che studia enti molteplici e numerosi soggetti al divenire. In questo contesto, la formulazione testuale assume un'importanza fondamentale per la corretta comprensione del pensiero aristotelico.
In particolare, la frase trasmessa nelle edizioni critiche più recenti, cioè quelle di Ross e di Carteron, con la punteggiatura che ho sopra riportato, significherebbe—ed è così interpretata dalla quasi totalità dei traduttori moderni della Fisica aristotelica—che gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che riguardano la natura e, dunque, la sua scienza. Tuttavia, ci sono interpreti che intendono questa stessa frase in modo diverso, spostando la virgola che nelle edizioni di Ross e di Carteron si legge dopo il secondo ou, prima di questa negazione. Così, il testo risulterebbe nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che non riguardano la natura.
Lungi dall’essere un problema ozioso, la diversa lettura della punteggiatura solleva un dubbio teorico di grande importanza. Ponendo la virgola prima o dopo la negazione ou, infatti, il senso del passo aristotelico risulta ribaltato: secondo la prima lettura, Parmenide e Melisso non sarebbero, secondo Aristotele, dei fisici; mentre secondo la seconda lettura, essi, al contrario, sarebbero filosofi che hanno indagato a pieno titolo sulla natura.
Quest'ultimo modo di intendere il passo aristotelico, contrario a quello comunemente adottato, è stato assunto in passato da diversi interpreti. Tra questi, sia Averroè sia Tommaso d'Aquino hanno inteso che gli Eleati abbiano indagato sulla natura; tra i moderni, Augustin Mansion e Pierre Pellegrin. Mansion, per giustificare la sua interpretazione, si richiama prevalentemente alle traduzioni arabe, da cui derivano le versioni latine di Gerardo da Cremona e di Michele Scoto. Pellegrin, invece, si sofferma sull'affermazione di Aristotele secondo la quale il filosofo ritiene opportuno risolvere non tutte le aporie, ma solo quelle di cui si può mostrare la falsità a partire dai principi (Phys. I, 2, 185a14-16). Egli analizza l’esempio della quadratura del cerchio, la cui soluzione da parte di Antifonte non è considerata da Aristotele come una questione che debba essere affrontata dal geometra, al contrario della procedura per mezzo delle sezioni, la cui risoluzione è precisamente di competenza del geometra.
Di qui, Pellegrin stabilisce un’analogia tra Parmenide e Melisso da un lato—i quali assumono che l’essere è uno e immobile—e Antifonte dall’altro lato—il quale cercò di risolvere il problema della quadratura del cerchio mediante l’iscrizione nel cerchio di poligoni regolari—procedura che per Aristotele non è accettabile dal punto di vista del geometra.
Sia Mansion che Pellegrin riconoscono che la lettura secondo la quale Parmenide e Melisso avrebbero sì indagato sulla natura, ma avrebbero sollevato aporie che non riguardano la natura, si trova già in Porfirio e in Alessandro, come si desume dal testo di Simplicio. Nessuno dei due studiosi, tuttavia, ha presentato in dettaglio la discussione di Simplicio, che presenta diversi tratti interessanti e che vale la pena interpretare correttamente. Non solo perché Alessandro, tra le due interpretazioni possibili, sceglie quella secondo cui, per Aristotele, gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura, ma anche perché alla fine del suo commento Simplicio stesso sembra sfumare la radicalità della sua critica ad Alessandro e, quindi, anche della sua propensione a interpretare nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura.
[introduction p. 537-539]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U8p9nMTxWVQUE6R

Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos, 2005
By: Scholten, Clemens

Title	Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2005
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	148
Issue	2
Pages	202-219
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Scholten, Clemens
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Möglicherweise ist daran auch die Einschätzung des letzten Rezensenten der Rabeschen Edition aus dem Jahre 1901 nicht unbeteiligt, der aetm. für unergiebig im Hinblick auf verlorene Quellen hielt und meinte, aetm. habe lediglich bekanntes Material zu bieten.

Aber es gab damals schon andere Stimmen. Bemerkenswerterweise hatte ein Jahr zuvor Wendland in seiner Rezension anders geurteilt. Ebenso forderte Gudeman in seinem RE-Artikel „Johannes Philoponos“ aus dem Jahre 1915 die Aufarbeitung der Quellenfrage. Bei diesem Desiderat ist es allerdings bis heute geblieben.

In größerem Umfang sind lediglich die Teile des Quellenmaterials aus aetm. behandelt worden, die für die Timaios-Kommentierung in der Zeit vor Proklos von Belang sind. Es handelt sich besonders um Texte aus den Timaios-Kommentaren des Calvisios Tauros und Porphyrios, die im Rahmen der Sichtung der erhaltenen Stücke aus dem Timaios-Kommentar des Porphyrios zusammengestellt wurden oder bei der Untersuchung der Weltentstehungslehren, wie sie im Rahmen der Exegese des Timaios entwickelt wurden, behandelt worden sind.

Auf Proklos-Texte hat Beutler in seinem RE-Artikel hingewiesen, allerdings einiges übersehen. Bereits verifiziert sind ein Zitat aus dem fünften Buch des Timaios-Kommentars des Proklos in aetm. 9,11 (364,5–365,3), die von Johannes Philoponos häufig erwähnte, paraphrasierte oder zitierte Schrift des Proklos Untersuchung der Einwände des Aristoteles gegen den platonischen Timaios (Ἐπἱσκέψις τῶν πρὸς τὸν Πλάτωνος Τίμαιον ὑπὸ Ἀριστοτέλους ἀντιρρηθέντων oder Ὁ ὑπὲρ τοῦ Τιμαίου πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην λόγος), die Proklos in seinem Timaios-Kommentar selbst erwähnt und die daher älter als der Kommentar sein dürfte, sowie die Proklos-Schrift Zehn Aporien hinsichtlich der Vorsehung, die Beutler als erster kurz vorgestellt hat und die Boese, Dornseiff und Feldbusch zu größeren Teilen in Texten späterer Autoren wiedergefunden haben.

Ein längeres Zitat aus Galens Schrift Über den Beweis ist schon zwei Jahre, bevor Rabe aetm. ediert hat, notiert worden. Eine vollständige Sichtung und Zusammenstellung aller in aetm. benutzten Quellen und doxographischen Nachrichten gibt es bis jetzt nicht.

Die unbeachteten Quellenstücke und doxographischen Nachrichten, die bei der Arbeit an der Übersetzung von aetm. auffielen, sollen im Folgenden vorgestellt werden. [introduction p. 202-204]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9laXIov8GbXAA3T

Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I 8] 6, 33-34 : Le « De Iside et Osiride » (369 A-E) de Plutarque, 2009
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc, Narbonne, Jean-Marc (Ed.), Poirier, Paul-Hubert (Ed.)

Title	Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I 8] 6, 33-34 : Le « De Iside et Osiride » (369 A-E) de Plutarque
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2009
Published in	Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot
Pages	87-95
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Editor(s)	Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert
Translator(s)

Despite numerous studies conducted for a long time on Plotinus' treatise 51, the formula expressing the radical opposition of good and evil remains partly a mystery. Plotinus argues against Aristotle's idea that substances do not have opposites, and claims that universal substance can have a contrary, namely non-substance and the nature of evil. Plotinus' dualism allows for organized counterattacks while preserving the supremacy of good, with evil existing as an enclave within being, limited by the boundaries of good. The image of a prisoner acting but limited by the chains that surround him from the outside is used to illustrate this idea. [introduction/conclusion]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O9OqImqHCPz7w7D

Une histoire néoplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2, 2017
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine, Gavray, Marc-Antoine (Ed.), Michalewski, Alexandra (Ed.)

Title	Une histoire néoplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2
Type	Book Section
Language	French
Date	2017
Published in	Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation
Pages	249-272
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)	Gavray, Marc-Antoine , Michalewski, Alexandra
Translator(s)

Le présent traité a pour but d’enseigner ce qui appartient en commun à toutes les réalités naturelles en tant qu’elles sont naturelles, c’est-à-dire corporelles. Ce qui leur est commun, ce sont les principes et leurs concomitants. Les principes sont les causes dites au sens propre et les causes accessoires. Selon eux [i.e. les Péripatéticiens], les causes sont la cause productrice et la cause finale, les causes accessoires la forme, la matière et, en général, les éléments. Platon ajoute aux causes la cause paradigmatique, aux causes accessoires la cause instrumentale.

La Physique concerne les principes et les concomitants communs, immanents, aux réalités naturelles. Simplicius identifie les principes aux quatre causes, qu’il répartit en deux groupes. Il reconnaît une supériorité à la cause productrice et à la cause finale, ce dont il trouve l’indice dans l’ordre que suit Aristote : matérielle et formelle, puis productrice et finale. Les premières sont des causes immanentes contenues dans le produit, les secondes des causes transcendantes et séparées de lui. Ces dernières sont plus proprement principes au sens où elles désignent ce d’où le produit provient et à quoi il retourne, tout en différant de lui. La séparation renferme le moyen d’en sortir, appelant à une transcendance qui reste néanmoins sur le même plan, celui de la physique. À ce degré, la séparation ne signifie pas la supériorité ontologique du principe, mais seulement son extériorité.

De cette distinction, Simplicius conclut qu’Aristote mène une étude conversive des causes, puisqu’il part de la plus basse (la cause matérielle étudiée par les anciens qui ramenaient toute explication à la matière) et termine par la plus éminente (la cause finale, préoccupation ultime du physicien selon le Phédon, où Socrate enjoint à chercher ce en vue de quoi est ce qui vient à exister). Ce faisant, il souligne le soin permanent d’Aristote à provoquer chez le lecteur une prise de conscience progressive de la nécessité de dépasser le plan de la physique pour s’élever à d’autres principes de la nature. La conversion qu’Aristote opère reste néanmoins dans le plan d’immanence des réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles, car la Physique évacue deux types de causes, plus proprement platoniciennes : la cause paradigmatique et la cause instrumentale.

Simplicius ne s’étend pas sur cette décision dans son introduction, mais il faut poursuivre le Commentaire pour en trouver les raisons. La cause paradigmatique se distingue de la cause formelle par sa transcendance. Elle est le modèle intellectif qui préside à l’information selon l’aptitude de ce qui le reçoit, « l’essence idéale par soi à l’image de laquelle est façonné ce qui est ici-bas ». Quant à la cause instrumentale, elle se distingue de la cause productrice comme ce au moyen de quoi (δι’ οὗ) à l’égard de ce par quoi (ὑφ’ οὗ) : elle est en quelque sorte une cause productrice intermédiaire et imparfaite, au sens où elle meut tout en étant elle-même mue. Si elle est absente de la Physique, c’est en raison de sa fonction première : commentant le Timée, Proclus explique que la cause instrumentale désigne le principe directement moteur de la matière et de la forme, mais dont le statut est intermédiaire car son rôle moteur provient d’un principe supérieur. Par là, il désigne plus précisément l’Âme du monde, dont la motricité procède ultimement du Démiurge. On le voit, ces deux causes n’ont pas leur place dans la Physique, parce qu’elles font intervenir des principes supérieurs aux réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles : les Idées et le Démiurge.

En résumé, la Physique s’occupe des formes dans la matière, les formes non séparées, et elle actualise la cognition en puissance de l’intellect qui se produit au moyen de la sensation et de la représentation. Autrement dit, elle vise à comprendre les formes dans la matière grâce aux modes de connaissance qui leur sont adaptés, sans faire appel à d’autres modes supérieurs de compréhension. En tant que partie de la philosophie, elle examine les principes nécessaires pour saisir le monde (sensible) dans lequel nous vivons, d’un point de vue qui lui est propre et immanent.

Sur cette base, je voudrais examiner où Simplicius situe la Physique dans l’histoire de la philosophie, et en particulier dans l’histoire des principes de la nature, en prenant pour cadre la systématicité qu’il trouve chez les philosophes présocratiques. Il s’agira d’un côté de comprendre comment ces principes s’articulent à ceux privilégiés par les formes concurrentes de la physique, celles qui traitent des causes supérieures, et de l’autre de montrer en quoi les Présocratiques expliquent le développement à la fois historique et taxinomique du système physique du néoplatonisme tardif. [introduction p. 249-251]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JiUJD0OfD6bN2xM

Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle, 2016
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)

Title	Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2016
Published in	Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators
Pages	291-312
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)	Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)

Porphyry followed Alexander by accepting multigrade universals, but Ammonius influenced posterity by associating Porphyry with the idea that only concepts are universals. Proclus and Simplicius drew from Aristotle’s concepts in Alexander when they gave reasons why Aristotle was wrong on both counts about Plato’s Ideas: Ideas were not universals, except in a qualified sense, but they were causes. Proclus accepted three levels of reality: Ideas before the many particulars and two grades of universal, one in the many particulars and a conceptual one modeled after the many particulars. His pupil Ammonius accepted three levels but transformed the highest one into non-universal concepts in the mind of Plato’s Creator God.

This was the first of two steps in presenting Aristotle as agreeing with Plato, contrary to the complaints of Proclus, because Aristotle’s God was a thinker who entertained concepts in his mind. Ammonius’ harmonization of Aristotle with Plato was completed by rejecting the claim of Proclus, and of Proclus’ teacher Syrianus, that Aristotle did not recognize his own arguments as implying that God was a Creator, just as Plato thought.

Philoponus diverged from Ammonius, and from Ammonius’ anonymous editor, by giving to concepts the role of being what we define and predicate. But only in his theological work did he reach the final transformation of making concepts into the only universals, thus concluding that the Christian Trinity consisted of three godheads having no unity except as a universal Godhead existing only in our minds.
[conclusion p. 312]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fOcJ4wUL2cQ6Ysg

Title	Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2002
Published in	Eudemus of Rhodes
Pages	127-156
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)	Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M.
Translator(s)

On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted.

Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.

Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22).

The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.

These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk

Wenn der Steuermann ruft..." (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7), 2022
By: Krämer, Benedikt

Title	Wenn der Steuermann ruft..." (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)
Type	Article
Language	German
Date	2022
Journal	Hyperboreus
Volume	28
Issue	1
Pages	111-122
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Krämer, Benedikt
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Die vorliegende Betrachtung hat eine Interpretation angeboten, die sich eng an den Wortlaut von Kapitel 7 des Encheiridion hält. Demnach beschreibt Epiktet in der Tat zwei verschiedene Lebenssituationen zweier Menschen (oder desselben Menschen in unterschiedlichen Lebensphasen).

Im ersten Fall thematisiert Epiktet die schicksalsbedingte Veränderung der Peristasen, der man entweder freiwillig oder unter Zwang Folge leisten kann. Im zweiten Fall kündigt der Ruf des Steuermanns den bevorstehenden Tod an.

Das verbindende Element der Lebensbeschreibungen ist die stoische Spannungslehre. Der tugendhafte Mensch richtet sich in allen Situationen und bei allen Entscheidungen auf Gott aus und erhöht so den Tonos seines seelischen Pneumas.

Im zweiten Fall spricht Epiktet aus seiner eigenen persönlichen Religiosität heraus psychagogisch wirksam die persönliche Religiosität des Lesers an. Wer den seelischen Tonos und die aufmerksame Ausrichtung auf Gott auch im fortgeschrittenen Alter bewahrt, wird den Tod – für eine gewisse Zeit – überdauern und eine Gemeinschaft mit Gott erleben.
[conclusion p. 120-121]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zHBaqqHklM9rLNZ

What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12, 2012
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume	6
Pages	173-185
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Simplicius in Cat.  12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justifĳication for the study of Aristotle’s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus’ reasons for endorsing Porphyry’s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry’s. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FkVb1TMzAG6AZ5E

Title	What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2020
Published in	Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus
Pages	115-141
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Longo, Angela
Editor(s)	Finamore, John F. , Manolea, Christina-Panagiota
Translator(s)

Plato’s contention that the self-mover is a principle of movement and is to be identified with the soul is contrasted with Aristotle’s belief that, despite the self-mover’s primacy among moving beings, the ultimate principle of movement is an unmoved mover, which only in the case of animals can be identified with the soul.

What seems to prompt Hermias to compare Plato (whom he is commenting on) with Aristotle (whom he repeatedly mentions) is his aim to reconcile the two great authorities of Late Antique Neoplatonist thinkers. As we have seen, Hermias frequently, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s Physics, particularly chapter 5 of book VIII, but also other sections of it (e.g., book II for the distinction between natural and artificial beings, book IV for the belief that actual infinity does not exist; to this list we may add the explicit quotation of Phys. II 2194b.13 in the section of the scholia we discussed above). Besides, Hermias clearly, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s De anima for the view that no bodily motions occur in the soul (De an. I 3, 405b.31ss.) and that there exist a passive and an active intellect (De an. III 5).

Our inquiry enables us to conclude that, historically speaking, it was the exegesis of Phaedrus 245c–e that originated the lexical and conceptual triad of “that which is moved by something else,” “that which moves by itself,” and “that which moves while remaining unmoved.” This triad, which played a key role in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, is rooted in the exegesis of Plato’s Phaedrus, yet it includes Aristotelian doctrines as well, most notably from the Physics.

From the point of view of the exegetical strategy, although both Hermias and Simplicius aimed to harmonize the doctrines of the two highest authorities in Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, probably in an attempt to defend them from the unstoppable rise of Christianity, they display different levels of sympathy and theoretical effort. Showing his clear preference for Plato’s doctrine, Hermias seems to employ quite rudimentary philosophical tools. Simplicius, due to his greater sympathy for Aristotle, focuses on the definitions of the terms at issue.

Finally, Simplicius can be said to make Hermias’ points more explicit and detailed. Hermias seems to take for granted the comparison between the Phaedrus and the Physics, and leaves it implicit, while Simplicius makes it explicit. Moreover, as compared to Hermias’ scholia on the Phaedrus, Simplicius’ extensive commentary on the Physics includes many more and much longer quotations from the works of Plato and Aristotle.
[conclusion p. 140-141]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RbX36KCg4F9Wcfd

What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the "Categories", 2012
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the "Categories"
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2012
Journal	Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume	55
Issue	1
Pages	69-108
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Through this sketch of the evidence, I hope to have suggested that there is, in any case, more to the bipartite theory than a compendious treatment or compression of the tripartite material by Porphyry, and that attention should be drawn to it as a separate and distinct layer of the tradition. I have also explored some of the ways in which both layers may be seen as predating Porphyry, while Porphyry’s approach to the Categories in the shorter commentary could be seen as building on an earlier source.
As to our first mystery—the role of the Categories in the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, both first-century and Neoplatonic—I would like to offer a few concluding reflections on the theory itself. To be significant, a verbal expression must have an extension that qualifies as ὄν (Porph. In Cat. 90,30-91,12 – T17; as this passage shows, the extension might be infinite). If Busse is right to read ἕκαστον κατὰ ἀριθμὸν σημαίνει <ἕν> τῶν ὄντων (“each numerically distinct expression signifies one of the beings”) around 58,5-15 (T9), I think we are not merely dealing with the Stoic view that there are “somethings” that do not subsist—occasionally compared to Meinong's distinction of bestehen and existieren as represented by Bertrand Russell—but an even stronger view, akin to Owen’s positive reading of the Parmenidean maxim that “what can be spoken and thought must exist” (B2). That sort of intuition, though pre-Platonic, was always part of the Platonic tradition.
Perhaps it is not so surprising, then, that we find friendly Platonist and Neopythagorean treatments in the earliest layer of the exegetical stratigraphy of the Categories, and that Porphyry should find it a suitable cornerstone around which to build later Neoplatonic ontology.
The bipartite theory that I have described looks like an extensional theory of signification—as Porphyry’s language in T17 might seem to suggest, the meaning of a predicate F amounts to the set of objects said to be F. We might call this kind of view nominalist, and not very much in the spirit of Platonism as we usually conceive it. But there are also examples in the Arabic tradition that draw on the Posterior Analytics for a kind of Platonic view about the existence of eternal natures.
For example (see Adamson, “Knowledge of Universals”), the tenth-century logician Ibn ʿAdī maintained that (1) terms in syllogisms directly refer (have some existing extension), (2) following the Post. An., demonstrative knowledge is never of the transient, unlimited particulars, and (3) nonetheless, demonstrative knowledge occurs; from these points, he was led to maintain that there are eternal, unchanging objects of reference. If this conclusion could be referred to as essential Platonism, then as Adamson puts it, “to some extent, Aristotle’s own words invited the Platonizing.”
It seems to me compatible with Alexander’s view, if I understand his De anima rightly (especially around p. 90), that there are eternal natures that may or may not be predicated of many particulars, a view about which Sharples has also written. My suggestion here, then, is just that the interpretation of the Organon that facilitates this line of thinking goes back to a very early layer of commentary on the Categories.
Modern philosophy arguably also provides examples of how a theory of direct reference can inspire different flavors of almost Platonic realism, especially when the observable infinity of particular objects of acquaintance is coupled with the observed feasibility of human knowledge.
Bertrand Russell in 1945 criticized Porphyry’s work on the Categories (which he had, I suppose, indirectly) by wielding the same weapons that had served against his interpretation of Meinong in 1904. Russell credited Porphyry’s alleged misreading of Aristotle with the excessively “metaphysical” temper of subsequent logic (HWP 1945:472), including entrenched realism about genera and species and “endless bad metaphysics about unity” (198).
But it was the early Russell himself who, in 1903, made every denoting phrase directly denote an existing entity and argued that “anything that can be mentioned is sure to be a term...” that has unity and in some sense exists (43).
In fact, Russell was led by his pre-1905 account of denoting to frame the problem of knowledge in terms strikingly similar to our bipartite theory (see T27a): the “inmost secret of our power to deal with infinity” lies in the fact that “an infinitely complex object... can certainly not be manipulated by the human intelligence; but infinite collections, owing to the notion of denoting, can be manipulated.”
Russell later eliminated (what he took to be) the Meinongian plurality of denoted beings implied by his own earlier logical realism, using his theory of descriptions as an instrument; thus the later Russell, who still maintained that “we could not acquire knowledge of absolute particulars,” came to hold that our words denote just adjectives or relations (T27b).
Porphyry—and arguably many Peripatetics before him—took an analogous temperament in precisely the opposite direction. Both held, in their own way, that an ideal language would carve nature at the joints; and the semantic building blocks of Porphyry's ideal language, as I have suggested here, were rooted in a long tradition of Peripatetic thought about what Aristotle’s Categories categorize, and in particular how unity could be imposed on plurality to make sense of the world.
But whereas Russell’s language ultimately aimed to talk about, and gain certainty about, a Moorean world of common sense and acquaintance, Porphyry’s categorical language aimed to talk about, and gain certainty about, the world of the Enneads and the existence of some eternal natures.
Peripatetic and Porphyrian logicism was not Russell’s, and a similar interest in the ontological implications of their logical apparatus led to very different results at the dawn of analytic philosophy and at the dawn of Neoplatonism: by dispensing with several components of Aristotle’s theory of predication that Porphyry had held to be central, Russell had toppled the giant from whose shoulders Porphyry had spied (and at any rate hoped to teach his pupils to spy) Plotinus’s ontology.
 [conclusion p. 90-92]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0V3z3uBVFDC712w

What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element, 2002
By: Baltzly, Dirk

Title	What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2002
Journal	Australasian Journal of Philosophy
Volume	80
Issue	3
Pages	261-287
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Baltzly, Dirk
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this paper, I consider Proclus’ arguments against Aristotle on the composition of the 
heavens from the fifth element, the aether. Proclus argues for the Platonic view (Timaeus 
40a) that the heavenly bodies are composed of all four elements, with fire predominating. 
I think that his discussion exhibits all the methodological features that we find admirable 
in  Aristotle’s  largely  a priori  proto-science.  Proclus’  treatment  of the  question  in  his 
commentary  on  Plato’s  Timaeus  also  provides  the  fullest  statement  of a  neoplatonic 
alternative to the Aristotelian theory of the elements. As such, it forms a significant part of 
a  still  largely underappreciated neoplatonic  legacy to  the history of science. [authors abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tOMemjPbvEoCytl

What is Platonism?, 2005
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.

Title	What is Platonism?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Journal of the History of Philosophy
Volume	43
Issue	3
Pages	253-276
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

My main conclusion is that we should understand Platonism historically as consisting in fidelity to the principles of “top-downism.” So understanding it, we havea relatively sharp critical tool for deciding who was and who was not a Platonist despite their silence or protestations to the contrary. Unquestionably, the most important figure in this regard is Aristotle. I would not like to end this historical inquiry, however, without suggesting a philosophical moral. The moral is that there
are at least some reasons for claiming that a truly anti-Platonic Aristotelianism is not philosophically in the cards, so to speak. Thus, if one rigorously and honestly seeks to remove the principles of Platonism from a putatively Aristotelian position, what would remain would be incoherent and probably indefensible. Thus, an Aristotelian ontology of the sensible world that excluded the ontological priority of the supersensible is probably unsustainable. And an Aristotelian psychology that did not recognize the priority and irreducibility of intellect to soul would be
similarly beyond repair.89 What contemporary exponents of versions of Platonism or  Aristotelianism  should  perhaps  conclude  from  a  study  of  the  history  is  that, rather than standing in opposition to each other, merger, or at least synergy, ought to be the order of the day.[conclusion, p. 276]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Y1wq12FmpF2tnaH

What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy, 2014
By: Destrée, Pierre (Ed.), Zingano, Marco (Ed.)

Title	What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2014
Publication Place	Sankt Augustin
Publisher	Academia Verlag
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco
Translator(s)

The problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' hêmin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well.

With contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destrée, Javier Echeñique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana Gómez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauvé Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE

What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators, 2006
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Gill, Mary Louise (Ed.), Pellegrin, Pierre (Ed.)

Title	What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2006
Published in	A Companion to Ancient Philosophy
Pages	597-622
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)	Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre
Translator(s)

Neoplatonic  thought  at  the  end  of antiquity  -   like  that  of most  of the  schools  of the Hellenistic and Roman period -  has an essentially exegetical and scholastic dimension. Beginning with the classical  and Hellenistic period,  philosophy in Greece is inseparable from  the  existence  of  schools  (private  or  public),  often  organized  as  places  of  communal life (sunousia), in which the explication of the texts of the school's founders came to  be  one  of the  main  activities.  The  practice  of exegesis  of written  texts  supplanted the  ancient  practice of dialogue.  It  was sustained  through its  application  to canonical texts,  and  was  put  to  everyday  use  in  the  framework  of courses  in  the  explication  of texts.  The social  reality of the school  as  an  institution,  with its  hierarchy,  its diadochos (i.e.,  the  successor  to  the  school’s  founder),  its  structure  as  a  conventicle  in  which communal life was practiced,  its library, its regulation of time, and its programs organized  around  the reading  of canonical  texts,  constitutes  a  concrete  context  into  which we  should  reinsert  the  practice  of exegesis,  which  is  the  heart  of philosophical  pedagogy  and the  matrix  of doctrinal  and  dogmatic works. [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S0TwJW1NoM7Owd5

What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers, 2010
By: Mueller, Ian, Mohr, Richard D. (Ed.), Sattler, Barbara M. (Ed.)

Title	What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2010
Published in	One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today
Pages	151-163
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Mueller, Ian
Editor(s)	Mohr, Richard D. , Sattler, Barbara M.
Translator(s)

In this essay, I want to say a very few things about Neo-Platonist interpretations of the Timaeus relating to the receptacle and the geometric characterization of earth, water, air, and fire. The starting point of my reflections was translating Simplicius’ commentary on books 3 and 4 of Aristotle’s On the Heavens, and much of what I say is based upon that. But I will also be invoking a passage from his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and some material in John Philoponus and Proclus. I begin with some remarks about Simplicius’ basic conception of what we call Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato. At the beginning of his extensive discussion of Aristotle’s objections to Plato’s geometrical chemistry, Simplicius says:

    The disagreement between the philosophers 
    is not substantive, but Aristotle pays attention to those who
    understand Plato superficially and frequently raises objections
    against the apparent meaning of what Plato says and what can
    be understood in a worse way, and he seems to be refuting Plato.
    (Simplicius, On Aristotle’s On the Heavens, 640, 28–31)

Simplicius’ point is not that Aristotle is a superficial reader, but that he raises objections to the surface meaning of what Plato says in order to prevent other people from espousing those superficial readings. In connection with another passage in On the Heavens in which Aristotle connects Plato’s association of the cube with earth to earth’s stability, Simplicius refers to Aristotle’s earlier criticism of Plato for allegedly saying that the earth has a winding motion around the pole:

    It is worth pointing out that Aristotle does know that Plato thinks
    the earth is steady since it was Plato who said that it is a cube
    because it is stable and remains fixed. Consequently, when in
    the preceding book he asserted that the earth is said by Timaeus
    to be wound and move , he was confronting
    those who understand Timaeus’ words in this way.
    (Simplicius, On Aristotle’s On the Heavens, 662, 31–663, 2)

So, Aristotle knows and shares Plato’s true view, and his criticisms are all directed at the superficial readings of Plato made by others. [introduction p. 151-152]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/26CCMYYQai0hS5Z

When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us, 2012
By: Gabor, Gary, Hoine, Pieter d' (Ed.), Van Riel, Gerd (Ed.)

Title	When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2012
Published in	Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel
Pages	325-340
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)	Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd
Translator(s)

At Enchiridion § 32,  Epictetus  raises  the  question  of  whether,  and  under  what  conditions, one should consult the art of divination (μαντική). Epictetus’ answer, along with Simplicius’ commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal  differences  between  Epictetus’  Stoicism  and  Simplicius’  Neoplatonism  lead  them  to  interpret  the  philosophical  significance  of  the  practice  in  different  ways.  As  determinists  who  believed  in  an  all-embracing  conception  of  fate,  the  Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus’ view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/isb0txplRikCizk

Where to Live the Philosophical Life in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return from Persia, 2005
By: Watts, Edward Jay

Title	Where to Live the Philosophical Life in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return from Persia
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2005
Journal	Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
Volume	45
Issue	3
Pages	285-315
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Watts, Edward Jay
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

The closing of the Neoplatonic school in Athens by Justinian in 532 was not the end of classical philosophy, for when they returned to the Empire from Persia two years later the philosophers did not need to reconstitute the school at Harran or at any particular city in order to continue their philosophical activities. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EoZ3BSOdBPuEnet

Which ‘Athenodorus’ commented on Aristotle's "Categories"?, 2013
By: Griffin, Michael J.

Title	Which ‘Athenodorus’ commented on Aristotle's "Categories"?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2013
Journal	The Classical Quarterly
Volume	63
Issue	1
Pages	199-208
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Griffin, Michael J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

In this note, I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories’ earliest critics, a Stoic identified only as ‘Athenodorus’ in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry, and Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this ‘Athenodorus’ with Athenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contemporary with Andronicus of Rhodes. I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering this identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.68) is, on philosophical grounds, a compelling candidate for identification with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes’ Athenodorus is relatively unlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility that our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted work on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in the first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who observes that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it).

Such a story runs counter to the older consensus, now considerably less certain, that Andronicus was the first philosopher to draw serious attention to the Categories after it had languished for centuries out of circulation. Instead, we might regard Andronicus’ relocation of the text to the outset of the Aristotelian curriculum under the new title Categories as a relatively late chapter in an ongoing tradition of commentary and polemic. In what follows, I suggest some possible motives for Andronicus’ relocation of the Categories, if it can be viewed as a response to earlier criticism. [introduction p. 199-200]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IbfU0uOFgfzLjDG

Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?, 2018
By: Karamanolis, George, Strobel, Benedikt (Ed.)

Title	Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2018
Published in	Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier
Pages	9-43
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)	Strobel, Benedikt
Translator(s)

Let me summarize the argument of this paper. I have argued that Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle because he found these works to represent an elaboration on and a development of Plato’s philosophy. This is a development in the sense that Aristotle not only wrestles with philosophical issues that Plato first explored and does so in a manner and with a method inspired by Plato, but also that Aristotle often takes views similar to those of Plato.

Porphyry does not deny that Aristotle often explores new territory; this is actually one reason why Porphyry devotes so much energy to studying and expounding Aristotle. What Porphyry does deny is that Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato’s philosophical views when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since these may be inspired by Plato or continue in some way Plato’s thinking on a given issue.

This is not something that Porphyry argues explicitly in his commentaries. Rather, this view lies in the background and is implicit. I argued, though, that this view motivates Porphyry’s Aristotelian commentaries. That is, in his commentaries, Porphyry sets out to substantiate his views on philosophical topics like causation, cosmogony, matter, the nature of linguistic items and their relation to things, concept formation, and so on, with reference to texts of the Platonist tradition in philosophy. And this tradition, Porphyry thinks, crucially includes Aristotle as well. [conclusion p. 36-37]

Online Resources

Why Does Plato's Element Theory Conflict With Mathematics (Arist. Cael. 299a2-6)?, 2003
By: Kouremenos, Theokritos

Title	Why Does Plato's Element Theory Conflict With Mathematics (Arist. Cael. 299a2-6)?
Type	Article
Language	English
Date	2003
Journal	Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume	146
Issue	3/4
Pages	328-345
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Kouremenos, Theokritos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

Since fire, air, and water consist of polyhedral molecules whose elementary constituents are of the same type, they can freely change into one another. Any of these three elements turns into another when its molecules break down into their elementary constituents, and these building blocks recombine into molecules of another element. Aristotle has in mind the reshuffling of elementary triangles when he refers to all bodies being made from, and dissolving into, planes. His first objection to this fundamental assumption in Plato's element theory is set out in Cael. 299a2-6: as is easily seen, constructing bodies from planes runs counter to mathematics whose 'hypotheses' should be accepted, unless one comes up with something more convincing.

Contrary to Aristotle's claim, it is not easy to see why Plato's element theory runs counter to mathematics because it constructs the polyhedral molecules from the triangular planes in the faces of these molecules. Aristotle presumably implies that this violates some mathematical 'hypotheses' which should be better left as they stand but does not explain what the 'hypotheses' in question are. Nor is it any clearer whether Plato commits himself to the rejection of these 'hypotheses' or some aspect of Plato's element theory entails their rejection by Aristotle's own lights. I will attempt to answer these questions after a critique of Simplicius who identifies the hypotheses in Cael. 299a2-6 with the Euclidean definitions of point, line, and plane but also thinks that Aristotle sets out further mathematical objections to Plato's element theory in Cael. 299a6-11: contrary to the commentator, there is only one such objection in Cael. 299a6-11, namely that Plato's element theory introduces indivisible lines, and, as is suggested by an allusion to Cael. 299a2-6 in the treatise On Indivisible Lines, the same objection is also implicit in Cael. 299a2-6.

That in this passage Plato's element theory is said to conflict with mathematics because it entails the existence of indivisible lines is borne out not only by Cael. 299a6-11 but also by 299a13-17. After interpreting the 'hypotheses' in Cael. 299a2-6 consistently with this fact, I will show that, when Aristotle charges Plato with introducing various sorts of indivisibles in his element theory, he actually brings out the untenability of this theory by arguing that Plato ought to introduce such entities which are, though, ruled out by mathematics. Aristotle's implicit objection in Cael. 299a2-6 follows from a similar argument which I will attempt to reconstruct in the final sections of this paper. [introduction p. 328-329]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9EHiPSWuW9oh0c4

Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius, 2024
By: Marc-Antoine Gavray

Title	Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2024
Published in	Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity
Pages	171-193
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Marc-Antoine Gavray
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

This paper examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in the Eleatic ontology
and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. It shows how the commen-
tator competes with his Peripatetic forerunners (Eudemus and Alexander) and makes Zeno’s
goal congruent with Parmenides. Zeno talks of the same One-Being as Parmenides did, not
of any physical one or being. However, instead of determining it directly, he has to convert
his readers, Parmenides’ opponents, through dialectical arguments (ἐπιχειρήματα). Therefore,
this article also questions the meaning of being a disciple and rescuing one’s master: Simpli-
cius uses Zeno as a model for every philosopher in this position.
Keywords: One-Being, dialectical arguments, dichotomia, division, Alexander of Aphrodi-
sias, Simplicius, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, Aristoteles, Eudemus of Rhodes [author's abstract]

Online Resources