Author 195
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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"245","_score":null,"_source":{"id":245,"authors_free":[{"id":314,"entry_id":245,"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":2775,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Christian Brockmann","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":null},{"id":2776,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Daniel Deckers ","free_first_name":"Daniel ","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":null},{"id":2777,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stefano Valente","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"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\u2019s treatiseOn the Soulamong Byzantine and Renaissancescholars.3For practical reasons, I keep using in this contribution the author\u2019sname \u2018Simplicius\u2019 as it is known in the tradition but put it between singlequotations marks to distinguish him from the real Simplicius. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j1NGkXq4FVGx9hw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":245,"pubplace":"","publisher":"","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":245,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":245,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"unpublished","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2024]}

Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo', 2024
By: Deckers, Daniel (Ed.), Brockmann, Christian (Ed.), Valente, Stefano (Ed.), Boureau, Mai-Lan
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)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1574","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1574,"authors_free":[{"id":2744,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2745,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2746,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2747,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":572,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","free_first_name":"Mai-Lan","free_last_name":"Boureau","norm_person":{"id":572,"first_name":"Mai-Lan","last_name":"Boureau","full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NqVyPiLS6En2pMe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":572,"full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1574,"section_of":1573,"pages":"191-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}

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)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1575","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1575,"authors_free":[{"id":2748,"entry_id":1575,"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":2749,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2750,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2751,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/r4x9UiKcqVzpdhL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1575,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}

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)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1576","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1576,"authors_free":[{"id":2752,"entry_id":1576,"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":2753,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2754,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2755,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jsGhr81iLqtnRuC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1576,"section_of":1573,"pages":"269-291","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}

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]

{"_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]}

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)
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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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)

{"_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]}

“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].

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1473,"authors_free":[{"id":2549,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":543,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Aerts, Saskia","free_first_name":"Saskia","free_last_name":"Aerts","norm_person":{"id":543,"first_name":"Saskia","last_name":"Aerts","full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2550,"entry_id":1473,"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":2551,"entry_id":1473,"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":2552,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul","main_title":{"title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul"},"abstract":"Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nThe key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the \u2018harmony\u2019 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. \u2018Harmony\u2019 translates the Greek symph\u014dnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.\u00b9 However, the term \u2018harmony\u2019 is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept\u2014 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.\u00b2 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.\u00b3 Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this \u2018harmonizing tendency,\u2019 as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators\u2019 approaches.\u2074\r\n\r\nIn 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\u2019s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics.\u2075 Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of \u2018harmony\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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 \u2018merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.\u2019\u2076 Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nIn addition to showing the individuality of these commentators\u2019 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]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SGsawecaEHSN9gD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":543,"full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1473,"section_of":1474,"pages":"178-200","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\/ZaiPIkzZzpNqhmG","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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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)

{"_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]}

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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1538","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1538,"authors_free":[{"id":2683,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":568,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","free_first_name":"Dmitri","free_last_name":"Nikulin","norm_person":{"id":568,"first_name":"Dmitri","last_name":"Nikulin","full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/17302503X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2687,"entry_id":1538,"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":2688,"entry_id":1538,"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":2689,"entry_id":1538,"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":"Simplicius on the Void","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Void"},"abstract":"The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle\u2019s 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]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":568,"full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1538,"section_of":1539,"pages":"231-255","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1539,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike. Corporeit\u00e0 nella filosofia tardoantica","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn2020","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mWbfOvt30jR6Y1U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1539,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"Academia philosophical studies","volume":"71","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1329","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1329,"authors_free":[{"id":1962,"entry_id":1329,"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":2381,"entry_id":1329,"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":2385,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":2386,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":455,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Weidtmann","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":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"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 erkl\u00e4rt, von denen alle anderen Realit\u00e4ten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebens\u00e4hnliche Kraft, die f\u00fcr die Sch\u00f6pfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1329,"section_of":1330,"pages":"241-253","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Platon und die Physis","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Koch2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AMVDL9mBzjUlvIg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1330,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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.]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"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":2357,"entry_id":1206,"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":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":2368,"entry_id":1206,"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":2369,"entry_id":1206,"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":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","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":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' 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 En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading 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\u2014at times repetitive\u2014but 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.\r\n\r\nBut 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\u2014as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","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. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

§ 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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"653","_score":null,"_source":{"id":653,"authors_free":[{"id":938,"entry_id":653,"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":939,"entry_id":653,"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":940,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"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":941,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"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":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios"},"abstract":"Der Eintrag bietet eine ausf\u00fchrliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschlie\u00dflich einer Diskussion \u00fcber sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios\u2019 Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manich\u00e4ismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":386,"full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":387,"full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":653,"section_of":288,"pages":"2060-2084","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":288,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","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)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rieweg\/Horn\/Wyrma2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":288,"pubplace":"Basel","publisher":"Schwabe","series":"","volume":"5\/3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

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.)
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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1443","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1443,"authors_free":[{"id":2305,"entry_id":1443,"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":2306,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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":2307,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2308,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2309,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams","main_title":{"title":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams"},"abstract":"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:\r\n\r\nEine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, n\u00e4mlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und \u00dcberleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen.\r\n\r\nDie zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles\u2019 Lehre vom aktiven Geist.\r\n\r\nDiese \u00e4u\u00dferst knappe Charakterisierung der St\u00e4rken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift l\u00e4sst seine Schw\u00e4chen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung.\r\n\r\nPriskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, \u201edie \u00dcbereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben\u201c; anders gesagt, erkl\u00e4rt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst f\u00fcr die Wahrheit h\u00e4lt. Das wichtigste Kriterium f\u00fcr diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich.\r\n\r\nKonsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen h\u00e4ufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten k\u00f6nnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erkl\u00e4rt.\r\n\r\nTrotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenm\u00e4chtig sind, darf man nicht \u00fcbersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalit\u00e4t 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.\r\n\r\nInsofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel f\u00fcr einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, f\u00fcr den Aristoteles nicht nur \u201ePlatons bester Ausleger\u201c ist, sondern auch eine \u201eweitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail\u201c liefert, \u201ewas dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erkl\u00e4rte\u201c.\r\n\r\nAuf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was f\u00fcr ihn Anlass zu einer ausf\u00fchrlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":442,"full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1443,"section_of":246,"pages":"547-675","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":246,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Busche2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":246,"pubplace":"Hamburg","publisher":"Felix Meiner Verlag","series":"Philosophische Bibliothek","volume":"694","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

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)

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_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).

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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":2676,"entry_id":1535,"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":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","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":2678,"entry_id":1535,"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":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would 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\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s 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\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s 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\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, 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\u20139,30) 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.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, 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 (t\u00f4i 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nSince 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\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1412","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1412,"authors_free":[{"id":2206,"entry_id":1412,"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":"Gavray","free_last_name":"Marc-Antoine","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":2210,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2211,"entry_id":1412,"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":2212,"entry_id":1412,"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":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don","main_title":{"title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"},"abstract":"Une qualit\u00e9 ind\u00e9niable des Commentaires de Simplicius r\u00e9side dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Pr\u00e9socratiques, des Platoniciens et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, mais surtout d\u2019Aristote et de Platon. C\u2019est notamment \u00e0 travers cet usage des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences que l\u2019on peut mesurer l\u2019originalit\u00e9 (ou la particularit\u00e9) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses th\u00e8ses s\u2019\u00e9laborent au fil d\u2019une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synth\u00e8se de la culture pa\u00efenne. D\u00e8s lors, c\u2019est dans une certaine pratique de l\u2019intertextualit\u00e9 que se joue sa contribution \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interpr\u00e9tation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition.\r\n\r\nOr, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n\u2019a pas \u00e9crit de commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don. En tant que membre de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il a certes d\u00fb lire et interpr\u00e9ter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame assist\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019une (au moins) des deux s\u00e9ries de cours dispens\u00e9es par son ma\u00eetre. \u00c0 tout le moins, il devait en conna\u00eetre l\u2019existence et avoir pris position par rapport \u00e0 une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, il faut emprunter un chemin d\u00e9tourn\u00e9, en examinant les citations et allusions li\u00e9es \u00e0 ce dialogue \u00e0 travers ses diff\u00e9rents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Ph\u00e9don et \u00e0 quelle fin ?\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d\u2019abord, j\u2019aimerais examiner l\u2019apport personnel de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, par rapport \u00e0 la tradition dans laquelle il s\u2019inscrit. Ensuite, plus particuli\u00e8rement, je voudrais \u00e9valuer la distance de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j\u2019esp\u00e8re contribuer \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension de la m\u00e9thode et de l\u2019originalit\u00e9 de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1412,"section_of":1411,"pages":"293-310","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1411,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Delcomminette_d'Hoine_Gavray2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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)

{"_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)

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"940","_score":null,"_source":{"id":940,"authors_free":[{"id":1395,"entry_id":940,"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":1396,"entry_id":940,"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":1397,"entry_id":940,"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":1398,"entry_id":940,"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":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)","main_title":{"title":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)"},"abstract":"La longue digression introduite par Simplicius dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote, qui est consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 la notion de \u00ab lieu \u00bb et qui prend la suite de l\u2019explication continue du texte m\u00eame d\u2019Aristote (Physique IV 1-5, 208a27 - 213a11), est traditionnellement d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le titre (sans support dans la tradition manuscrite) de Corollarium de loco. Avec le Corollarium de tempore, qui accompagne parall\u00e8lement l\u2019explication du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien du temps (Physique IV 10-14, 217b29 - 224a17), il constitue un diptyque essentiel pour notre connaissance de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne de la Nature, car il offre sur les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de l\u2019espace et du temps des expos\u00e9s d\u2019importance majeure.\r\n\r\nLe Corollarium de loco pr\u00e9sente, sur 45 pages des CAG, une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Damascius (et Simplicius lui-m\u00eame), qui nous a conserv\u00e9 de pr\u00e9cieux fragments de deux trait\u00e9s perdus de Proclus et de Damascius, et suit un plan en deux parties tr\u00e8s nettement distingu\u00e9es. Une section dialectique, tout d\u2019abord, dans laquelle Simplicius m\u00e8ne un examen critique des contradictions du dossier aristot\u00e9licien (Physique et De caelo), en r\u00e9pondant au traitement par Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise de la magna quaestio. Il discute dans cette premi\u00e8re partie les doctrines ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 celle de Damascius (d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Syrianus) et s\u2019attache \u00e0 comprendre les raisons de leur \u00e9chec.\r\n\r\nVient ensuite une pars construens, ou plut\u00f4t un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la doctrine v\u00e9ridique du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, celle de Damascius, que Simplicius retouche et pr\u00e9cise. Dans la premi\u00e8re partie, dialectique, Simplicius consacre pr\u00e8s de 13 pages (de l\u2019\u00e9dition Diels), soit pr\u00e8s du tiers de l\u2019ensemble de la digression, \u00e0 l\u2019examen critique des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb qui se sont int\u00e9ress\u00e9es \u00e0 un type de d\u00e9finition rejet\u00e9 (et n\u00e9glig\u00e9) par Aristote, celui qui fait du lieu un \u00ab espace \u00bb ou une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb. La discussion de ces doctrines (repr\u00e9sent\u00e9es sous des formes diverses par D\u00e9mocrite, Straton de Lampsaque, Syrianus, et Proclus) est particuli\u00e8rement importante car, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 une m\u00e9thode d\u2019origine aristot\u00e9licienne, l\u2019examen dialectique des opinions consiste non seulement en une critique et une r\u00e9futation, mais vise aussi \u00e0 extraire la part de v\u00e9rit\u00e9 contenue dans les opinions examin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLa lecture d\u2019ensemble de la digression permet de comprendre que Simplicius a pr\u00eat\u00e9 un int\u00e9r\u00eat tout particulier aux d\u00e9finitions du \u00ab lieu \u00bb comme \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb (corporelle ou incorporelle) parce qu\u2019elles pr\u00e9figuraient en quelque sorte \u2013 de fa\u00e7on certes maladroite et fautive \u2013 la doctrine de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. On passe alors de la consid\u00e9ration de l\u2019\u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb \u00e0 celle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne. En effet, lorsqu\u2019il en vient \u00e0 l\u2019expos\u00e9 complet de la doctrine de Damascius, Simplicius met en lumi\u00e8re le fait qu\u2019il y a une liaison fondamentale entre le \u00ab lieu \u00bb et la \u00ab distension \u00bb, qui se r\u00e9alise dans la Procession. Le lieu est une d\u00e9termination \u00ab in\u00e9tendue \u00bb, qui \u00ab \u0153uvre \u00e0 la perfection des corps \u00bb, et plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment il est la \u00ab mesure rassemblante \u00bb d\u2019une modalit\u00e9 particuli\u00e8re de la \u00ab distension \u00bb, d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le terme de \u00ab disposition \u00bb : disposition des parties d\u2019une totalit\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de cette totalit\u00e9 ou encore position d\u2019un corps \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un autre corps envisag\u00e9 comme totalit\u00e9 plus englobante.\r\n\r\nMalgr\u00e9 l\u2019autorit\u00e9 dont Proclus est rev\u00eatu aux yeux de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, et malgr\u00e9 le respect profond que Simplicius \u00e9prouve pour lui, il lui importe ici de r\u00e9futer que le lieu soit un corps, f\u00fbt-ce un corps immat\u00e9riel, afin que le lieu puisse ult\u00e9rieurement \u00eatre d\u00e9fini comme une mesure in\u00e9tendue et incorporelle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb des corps (Damascius). Dans le trait\u00e9 perdu dont des passages centraux sont conserv\u00e9s par Simplicius, Proclus d\u00e9montre sa doctrine par la conjonction d\u2019une d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique et apodictique, et par un recours \u00e0 deux confirmations offertes par des autorit\u00e9s sacr\u00e9es : la Raison rencontre la R\u00e9v\u00e9lation.\r\n\r\nLa premi\u00e8re d\u00e9marche part de pr\u00e9misses aristot\u00e9liciennes (Physique IV 4, 212a2-6). Elle promeut l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle le \u00ab lieu \u00bb serait une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb, et elle d\u00e9montre que c\u2019est une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb corporelle, comprise comme sph\u00e8re de lumi\u00e8re pure co\u00efncidant avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique : un corps immobile, indivisible, immat\u00e9riel. La seconde d\u00e9marche consiste \u00e0 poser la concordance de cette conclusion rationnelle avec les donn\u00e9es du mythe d\u2019Er dans la R\u00e9publique, et avec le sens attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 un vers chalda\u00efque qui \u00e9nonce de fa\u00e7on myst\u00e9rieuse que l\u2019\u00c2me du Monde \u00ab anime de fond en comble lumi\u00e8re, feu, \u00e9ther, mondes \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLe lieu-lumi\u00e8re d\u00e9montr\u00e9 par la proc\u00e9dure rationnelle est enseign\u00e9 par le sens profond (et cach\u00e9) que l\u2019on d\u00e9c\u00e8le dans le mythe (c\u2019est la colonne de lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X 616b4-c4) et dans la parole m\u00eame des dieux. Le commentaire de Proclus sur la R\u00e9publique identifie parall\u00e8lement la lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X au lieu du Ciel, r\u00e9affirme son identit\u00e9 avec la lumi\u00e8re chalda\u00efque, et fait r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 ce trait\u00e9 en offrant une doctrine tout \u00e0 fait concordante.\r\n\r\nL\u2019autorit\u00e9 des Oracles Chalda\u00efques est pour les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de cette \u00e9poque la source ultime de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9, et Simplicius engage contre Proclus, pas \u00e0 pas, une longue discussion ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique sur le sens de cet Oracle. Cette discussion est un document exceptionnel sur l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat port\u00e9 aux Oracles Chalda\u00efques par Simplicius, au sein m\u00eame d\u2019un commentaire sur Aristote et sur une question de physique.\r\n\r\nL\u2019objet des pages qui suivent est de proposer une traduction comment\u00e9e de l\u2019ensemble du texte de Simplicius (In Phys. 611,8 - 618,7 D.), de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 montrer l\u2019osmose entre la d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique de Simplicius (et de Proclus), qui correspond \u00e0 une recherche de Physique, et l\u2019op\u00e9ration herm\u00e9neutique appliqu\u00e9e \u00e0 une parole oraculaire, laquelle est une confirmation d\u2019un raisonnement et une exp\u00e9rience de foi puisqu\u2019elle porte sur un objet divin. La traduction du texte de Simplicius sera pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9e de quelques remarques pr\u00e9liminaires sur l\u2019Oracle 51. Le texte grec de Simplicius est accessible \u00e0 la fois dans l\u2019\u00e9dition de Diels et dans l\u2019\u00e9dition mise en ligne d\u00e9j\u00e0 mentionn\u00e9e (\u00e9d. Golitsis-Hoffmann). [introduction p. 101-106]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/32ZuxPLp2VNh3t0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":940,"section_of":357,"pages":"101-152","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":357,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Oracles Chalda\u00efques: fragments et philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lecerf2014b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/w8DvrIrkCyncwcE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":357,"pubplace":"Heidelberg","publisher":"Winter","series":"Bibliotheca Chaldaica","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"813","_score":null,"_source":{"id":813,"authors_free":[{"id":1205,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":527,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"Minunno","norm_person":{"id":527,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"Minunno","full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038751004","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1206,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":1207,"entry_id":813,"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":2513,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2514,"entry_id":813,"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":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)","main_title":{"title":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)"},"abstract":"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 \u201cheroes.\u201d On awakening, they connected the moment when they had fallen asleep to the moment when they awoke and therefore did not notice the interval.\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s 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\u2019 commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle\u2019s 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 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; 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 (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1).\r\n\r\nTertullian, 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]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":527,"full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":523,"full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":524,"full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":525,"full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":526,"full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":813,"section_of":330,"pages":"553-560","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Xella2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iUTyM3hPAwKbnMb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":330,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnster","publisher":"Ugarit","series":"Alter Orient und Altes Testament","volume":"404","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"482","_score":null,"_source":{"id":482,"authors_free":[{"id":653,"entry_id":482,"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":654,"entry_id":482,"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":2424,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":2425,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle"},"abstract":"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.\r\n\r\nAnd 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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 \u201cchallenging literary texts.\u201d It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required.\r\n\r\nTo play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: \u201cIn this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man\u2019s writings admit of more than one interpretation.\u201d 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.\r\n\r\nTo 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\u2019 argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed.\r\n\r\nAll participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nFor 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.\r\n\r\nWhen commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) and profound (\u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, \u201cfind pleasure in plausible arguments,\u201d based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. \u201cThe more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn this sense, I would also like to be a \u2018profound\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nFor, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: \u201cWhat do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?\u201d [conclusion p. 490-492]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":479,"full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":482,"section_of":322,"pages":"469-494","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":322,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie 2010","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0QiKNhBCl16gJMn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":322,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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.]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"767","_score":null,"_source":{"id":767,"authors_free":[{"id":1131,"entry_id":767,"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":2326,"entry_id":767,"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}},{"id":2327,"entry_id":767,"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":2328,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1.","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1."},"abstract":"The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius\u2019 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\u2019 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\u2019 \"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]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":767,"section_of":121,"pages":"1-16","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":121,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.1-5\u2019","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bodn\u00e1r\/Chase\/Share2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LJFtY7RnI5jMqhW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":121,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"614","_score":null,"_source":{"id":614,"authors_free":[{"id":869,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":870,"entry_id":614,"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":2226,"entry_id":614,"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":2227,"entry_id":614,"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":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius","main_title":{"title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius"},"abstract":"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]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":614,"section_of":613,"pages":"317\u2013342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":613,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Clucas2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J4IFZHaUYcFnYSe","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":613,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Studies in Intellectual History","volume":"198","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1500,"authors_free":[{"id":2604,"entry_id":1500,"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":2606,"entry_id":1500,"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}},{"id":2607,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2608,"entry_id":1500,"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}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"},"abstract":"This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 most celebrated legacy\u2014the 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\u2019 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.)\r\n\r\nThe passages translated here (T1\u20136) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant \u201cfragments\u201d of modern editions (65C, 66\u201369, and 71 in volume XIV = 104\u2013108 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\u2019s and Kidd\u2019s edition of Posidonius\u2019 fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by \/\/...\/\/ ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions.\r\n\r\nTo 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nInformation on this theory of the Earth\u2019s 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\u2013485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490\u2013560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it.\r\n\r\nEven 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\u2019 citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo (T4\u20136), and one in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position.\r\n\r\nIn what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato\u2019s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8\u2013C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides\u2019 theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth.\r\n\r\nFinally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5\u20136) appended to discussions of Aristotle\u2019s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo.\r\n\r\nIn an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides\u2019 theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges\u2014first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)\u2014is a methodological rationale for Heraclides\u2019 theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, \u201cto save the phenomena.\u201d\r\n\r\nYet 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\u2019 theory of the Earth\u2019s 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\u2019 theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations.\r\n\r\nSo, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides\u2019 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.\r\n[conclusion p. 155-158]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2YB813ju2mFR0oM","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"}},{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1500,"section_of":1501,"pages":"155-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1501,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S3mQv3IiJFEaVfY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"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]

{"_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]

{"_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)

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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 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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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.)
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]

{"_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]}

Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)
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]

{"_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.)
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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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 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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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.]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"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":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2066,"entry_id":1193,"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}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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 koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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 koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. 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 koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, 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]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"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]

{"_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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"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":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":[2004]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"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}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"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":1557,"entry_id":1029,"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":1558,"entry_id":1029,"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":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"782","_score":null,"_source":{"id":782,"authors_free":[{"id":1148,"entry_id":782,"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}},{"id":1149,"entry_id":782,"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":1150,"entry_id":782,"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":1151,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","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 commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien. Il s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : Comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la metriopathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant). Mais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique et Proclus. David (\u00c9lias) pour sa part nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af). Nous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d\u2019exhortations non techniques aptes \u00e0 fournir l\u2019instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire dont le d\u00e9butant en philosophie devait d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00eatre impr\u00e9gn\u00e9. D\u00e8s lors, il fallait qu\u2019il interpr\u00e8te le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l\u2019\u00e9thique sto\u00efcienne culminant dans l\u2019apatheia du sage sto\u00efcien, comme cela aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne.\r\n\r\nEn proc\u00e9dant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le syst\u00e8me \u00e9thique n\u00e9oplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait \u00e9tonnante et sans jointure apparente, l\u2019\u00e9thique du sto\u00efcisme, \u00e9videmment sans ses bases mat\u00e9rialistes, l\u2019\u00e9thique de l\u2019Ancienne Acad\u00e9mie et l\u2019\u00e9thique p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. Le n\u00e9oplatonisme avait admis en effet, \u00e0 partir de Porphyre, l\u2019existence de quatre degr\u00e9s de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus \u00ab politiques \u00bb ou \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab pratiques \u00bb, impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. En revanche, les degr\u00e9s de vertu sup\u00e9rieurs se fondaient sur l\u2019apatheia sto\u00efcienne.\r\n\r\nComme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s\u2019adressaient \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants, cette \u0153uvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la pr\u00e9paration au premier degr\u00e9 des vertus, donc aux vertus \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab politiques \u00bb r\u00e9gies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caract\u00e9risent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropri\u00e9es, comme leur nom l\u2019indique, au citoyen vertueux, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00e0 quelqu\u2019un qui prend activement part \u00e0 la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d\u2019apr\u00e8s les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou m\u00eame les vertus th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques.\r\n\r\nL\u2019homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l\u2019explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-m\u00eame, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire sur son \u00e2me raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-m\u00eame, donc vers son \u00e2me raisonnable, de vouloir r\u00e9aliser cette \u00ab conversion \u00bb, est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu\u2019un qui est d\u00e9sormais d\u00e9sireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c\u2019est \u00e0 ce genre d\u2019hommes que s\u2019adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxi\u00e8me partie du Manuel (\u00e0 partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s\u2019agit pas de ceux qui seraient d\u00e9j\u00e0 en possession des vertus cathartiques ni m\u00eame des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progr\u00e8s vers l\u2019acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagn\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00e9tude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la m\u00eame la premi\u00e8re condition pour pouvoir plus tard, apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre longuement familiaris\u00e9s avec les \u00e9tudes philosophiques, acqu\u00e9rir les vertus cathartiques.\r\n\r\nLe Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te s\u2019adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une premi\u00e8re partie, \u00e0 ceux qui n\u2019ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer \u00e0 purifier leurs m\u0153urs et leur \u00e2me, autrement dit, \u00e0 soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles \u00e0 la raison. La deuxi\u00e8me partie concernerait ceux qui ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait des progr\u00e8s sur le chemin qui m\u00e8ne \u00e0 la domination des passions et commencent \u00e0 s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 la philosophie elle-m\u00eame. Dans les deux cas, il s\u2019agit de d\u00e9butants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s\u2019initier \u00e0 la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JJVi9durYJt0iuG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":782,"section_of":218,"pages":"47-87","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"945","_score":null,"_source":{"id":945,"authors_free":[{"id":1409,"entry_id":945,"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}},{"id":1410,"entry_id":945,"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":1411,"entry_id":945,"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":1412,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"Nous avons vu, \u00e0 l\u2019aide de plusieurs exemples, la mani\u00e8re dont le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius avait comment\u00e9 un texte sto\u00efcien. Nous avons constat\u00e9 que Simplicius ne peut s\u2019emp\u00eacher de r\u00e9introduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure o\u00f9 ses auditeurs ou lecteurs d\u00e9butants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes tr\u00e8s complexes, qui n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec le texte du Manuel.\r\n\r\nLes conclusions que l\u2019on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur \u00c9pict\u00e8te, mais \u00e9galement pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caract\u00e9rise la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius commentant les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, c\u2019est la simplicit\u00e9 et l\u2019objectivit\u00e9. Il en conclut que, puisque l\u2019auteur du commentaire du De anima d\u2019Aristote attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Simplicius donne libre cours \u00e0 son interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut \u00eatre l\u2019auteur de ce commentaire.\r\n\r\nIl est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les \u0153uvres de logique, le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d\u2019occasions d\u2019introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va d\u00e9j\u00e0 autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du De anima, trait\u00e9 qui se pla\u00e7ait, dans le cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien, imm\u00e9diatement avant la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, et qui abordait des probl\u00e8mes m\u00e9taphysiques, la situation \u00e9tait toute diff\u00e9rente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes diff\u00e9raient largement de celles d\u2019Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver \u00e0 chaque pas l\u2019harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote revenait \u00e0 un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente diff\u00e9rence de m\u00e9thode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l\u2019\u00e2me que professaient Aristote et les n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nPlus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, quand on compare la position d\u2019un sto\u00efcien comme \u00c9pict\u00e8te concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d\u2019un n\u00e9oplatonicien, en l\u2019occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d\u2019autonomie \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard du divin chez le philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien. Le sto\u00efcien, en s\u2019appuyant exclusivement sur la coh\u00e9rence de son syst\u00e8me et sur la force de sa raison, qu\u2019il croit apte \u00e0 diriger une vie vertueuse s\u2019il est d\u00e9cid\u00e9 \u00e0 la suivre, se consid\u00e8re ma\u00eetre autonome de sa relation \u00e0 Dieu. La question du salut de son \u00e2me apr\u00e8s sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui.\r\n\r\nIl en va autrement du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son \u00e2me, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement syst\u00e9matis\u00e9e et abstraite et d\u2019une vie vertueuse, de l\u2019aide des dieux, en partie obtenue gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 des rites qu\u2019il croit transmis par des \u00ab r\u00e9v\u00e9lations \u00bb. Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses pa\u00efennes, ressemble finalement \u00e0 celle du christianisme recourant \u00e0 des rites et des sacrements. \u00c0 vrai dire, lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la th\u00e9urgie correspondant \u00e0 son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, \u00e0 une union mystique avec l\u2019Un ou l\u2019Ineffable.\r\n\r\nMais tandis que Plotin arrivait \u00e0 cette union par des moyens autonomes, les n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e0 partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d\u2019y arriver tout \u00e0 fait par eux-m\u00eames ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs \u00e2mes dans leur patrie sans l\u2019aide d\u2019un certain rituel. Il persiste n\u00e9anmoins de grandes diff\u00e9rences entre la \u00ab religion \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d\u2019autres religions qui ont la pr\u00e9tention de poss\u00e9der seules la v\u00e9rit\u00e9. La plus importante de ces diff\u00e9rences, \u00e0 mes yeux, consiste en la tol\u00e9rance et l\u2019ouverture d\u2019esprit vis-\u00e0-vis des religions \u00e9trang\u00e8res.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu comment les n\u00e9oplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des diff\u00e9rents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences \u00e9taient des manifestations d\u2019une m\u00eame divinit\u00e9, appropri\u00e9es \u00e0 la diversit\u00e9 des r\u00e9gions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux diff\u00e9rentes religions localement implant\u00e9es une sorte d\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9 de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu\u2019on arrivait en qualit\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9tranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux diff\u00e9rent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et m\u00eame s\u2019y conformer au moins ext\u00e9rieurement.\r\n\r\nCet esprit d\u2019ouverture et de tol\u00e9rance religieuse s\u2019est largement perdu avec la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 gr\u00e9co-romaine et nous fait tellement d\u00e9faut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi \u00c9pict\u00e8te, auraient certainement approuv\u00e9 les mots du pr\u00e9fet pa\u00efen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la d\u00e9cision de l\u2019empereur chr\u00e9tien de faire enlever de la salle du S\u00e9nat romain l\u2019autel de la Victoire :\r\n\r\n \u00ab Nous contemplons les m\u00eames astres, le ciel nous est commun, le m\u00eame monde nous enveloppe. Qu\u2019importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 ? \u00c0 un si grand myst\u00e8re on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. \u00bb [conclusion p. 208-211]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":945,"section_of":218,"pages":"183-211","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"946","_score":null,"_source":{"id":946,"authors_free":[{"id":1413,"entry_id":946,"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}},{"id":1414,"entry_id":946,"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":1415,"entry_id":946,"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":1416,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale","main_title":{"title":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, qui compare la vie humaine \u00e0 un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d\u2019une interpr\u00e9tation all\u00e9gorique de la parabole qui s\u2019efforce de nous en faire d\u00e9couvrir le sens cach\u00e9. En voici la traduction :\r\n\r\n \"Or, il me semble qu\u2019il a introduit un exemple imagin\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait appropri\u00e9e. Car la mer, parce qu\u2019elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agit\u00e9es, qu\u2019elle change d\u2019une mani\u00e8re si vari\u00e9e, qu\u2019elle \u00e9touffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l\u2019analogie qu\u2019elle pr\u00e9sente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu\u2019elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les \u00e2mes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d\u2019Heimarmen\u00ea ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait \u00eatre le dieu, lui qui, par ses pr\u00e9voyantes pens\u00e9es, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d\u2019une mani\u00e8re adapt\u00e9e au m\u00e9rite (kat\u2019 axian) de chacun, l\u2019univers et la descente des \u00e2mes dans le devenir.\r\n\r\n L\u2019entr\u00e9e du navire au port, c\u2019est la mise en place des \u00e2mes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c\u2019est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendr\u00e9es en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d\u2019eau, c\u2019est le soin des choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu\u2019y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus n\u00e9cessaire que l\u2019eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l\u2019on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-m\u00eame l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019une mani\u00e8re appropri\u00e9e : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propri\u00e9t\u00e9, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont donn\u00e9es 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.\r\n\r\n Le principal, en effet, c\u2019est d\u2019\u00eatre tendu et tourn\u00e9 perp\u00e9tuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut m\u00eame pas s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 ces choses, comme si elles \u00e9taient n\u00e9cessaires de la m\u00eame mani\u00e8re que la provision d\u2019eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose v\u00e9ritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile \u00e0 la vie.\" [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UWgctr8ErscwqR3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":946,"section_of":218,"pages":"143-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"947","_score":null,"_source":{"id":947,"authors_free":[{"id":1417,"entry_id":947,"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}},{"id":1418,"entry_id":947,"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":1419,"entry_id":947,"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":1420,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet","main_title":{"title":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet"},"abstract":"Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte \u00e0 la discipline du d\u00e9sir. Il invite, sous une forme imag\u00e9e, \u00e0 ne pas s\u2019attacher aux personnes qui nous sont ch\u00e8res, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires.\r\n\r\nDans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en pr\u00e9sence d\u2019une comparaison, parabole ou all\u00e9gorie. Une all\u00e9gorie est, pourrait-on dire, une m\u00e9taphore prolong\u00e9e. Les parties d\u2019un ensemble structur\u00e9 et coh\u00e9rent de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (A), ici l\u2019escale d\u2019un navire dans un port, correspondent terme \u00e0 terme aux parties d\u2019un autre ensemble structur\u00e9 de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (B), ici la vie humaine. L\u2019auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre \u00e0 son lecteur, que la conduite que l\u2019on est oblig\u00e9 d\u2019avoir dans l\u2019ensemble B doit \u00eatre analogue \u00e0 celle qui nous semble n\u00e9cessaire dans l\u2019ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":947,"section_of":218,"pages":"127-141","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"948","_score":null,"_source":{"id":948,"authors_free":[{"id":1421,"entry_id":948,"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}},{"id":1422,"entry_id":948,"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":1423,"entry_id":948,"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":1424,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb"},"abstract":"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 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), 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]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":948,"section_of":218,"pages":"103-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"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.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"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":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","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}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"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":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s 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).\r\n\r\nThere 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.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s 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\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"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}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. 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":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"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]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OLB13j4YVPx0XVb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":582,"authors_free":[{"id":825,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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":2009,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2010,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2011,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden","main_title":{"title":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden"},"abstract":"Der Exkurs \u00fcber Chosroes, Uranius und die Philosophengesandtschaft der \r\nathenischen Neuplatoniker im Jahr 532 gestattet einen Einblick in die \r\nkulturellen Kontakte zwischen Rom und Persien im 6. Jahrhundert. Er zeigt, \r\nda\u00df es im R\u00f6mischen Reich eine weitverbreitete Kenntnis \u00fcber die Renaissance \r\nder Sasaniden unter Chosroes gab, auch wenn das Bild Persiens zum Teil \r\nidealisiert wurde. Die philosophische Bildung des Chosroes r\u00fchmten sowohl \r\nPerser als auch R\u00f6mer. Der Exkurs demonstriert das breite Interesse an der \r\nanderen Kultur, das sich besonders bei den Heiden fand. Schlie\u00dflich ver\u00ad\r\ndeutlicht er, da\u00df sich Persien im 6. Jahrhundert zunehmend zum Fluchtpunkt \r\nf\u00fcr Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem R\u00f6mischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":582,"section_of":380,"pages":"123-160","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":380,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuol\/Hartmann\/Luther2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rscXaDagl5S5H9Q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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)

{"_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)

{"_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".

{"_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]}

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]

{"_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]

{"_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]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
"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".

{"_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":["\"Simplikios\""]}

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]

{"_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":["A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"813","_score":null,"_source":{"id":813,"authors_free":[{"id":1205,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":527,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"Minunno","norm_person":{"id":527,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"Minunno","full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038751004","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1206,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":1207,"entry_id":813,"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":2513,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2514,"entry_id":813,"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":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)","main_title":{"title":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)"},"abstract":"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 \u201cheroes.\u201d On awakening, they connected the moment when they had fallen asleep to the moment when they awoke and therefore did not notice the interval.\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s 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\u2019 commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle\u2019s 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 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; 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 (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1).\r\n\r\nTertullian, 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]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":527,"full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":523,"full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":524,"full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":525,"full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":526,"full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":813,"section_of":330,"pages":"553-560","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Xella2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iUTyM3hPAwKbnMb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":330,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnster","publisher":"Ugarit","series":"Alter Orient und Altes Testament","volume":"404","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)"]}

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]

{"_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":["Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)"]}

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]

{"_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":["Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"]}

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]

{"_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":["Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"]}

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]

{"_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":["An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"]}

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]

{"_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":["Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition"]}

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]

{"_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":["Aquinas and the Platonists"]}

Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo', 2024
By: Deckers, Daniel (Ed.), Brockmann, Christian (Ed.), Valente, Stefano (Ed.), Boureau, Mai-Lan
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)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1574","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1574,"authors_free":[{"id":2744,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2745,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2746,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2747,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":572,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","free_first_name":"Mai-Lan","free_last_name":"Boureau","norm_person":{"id":572,"first_name":"Mai-Lan","last_name":"Boureau","full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NqVyPiLS6En2pMe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":572,"full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1574,"section_of":1573,"pages":"191-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'"]}

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]

{"_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":["Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory"]}

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.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"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":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"]}

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]

{"_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":["Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1412","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1412,"authors_free":[{"id":2206,"entry_id":1412,"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":"Gavray","free_last_name":"Marc-Antoine","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":2210,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2211,"entry_id":1412,"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":2212,"entry_id":1412,"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":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don","main_title":{"title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"},"abstract":"Une qualit\u00e9 ind\u00e9niable des Commentaires de Simplicius r\u00e9side dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Pr\u00e9socratiques, des Platoniciens et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, mais surtout d\u2019Aristote et de Platon. C\u2019est notamment \u00e0 travers cet usage des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences que l\u2019on peut mesurer l\u2019originalit\u00e9 (ou la particularit\u00e9) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses th\u00e8ses s\u2019\u00e9laborent au fil d\u2019une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synth\u00e8se de la culture pa\u00efenne. D\u00e8s lors, c\u2019est dans une certaine pratique de l\u2019intertextualit\u00e9 que se joue sa contribution \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interpr\u00e9tation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition.\r\n\r\nOr, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n\u2019a pas \u00e9crit de commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don. En tant que membre de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il a certes d\u00fb lire et interpr\u00e9ter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame assist\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019une (au moins) des deux s\u00e9ries de cours dispens\u00e9es par son ma\u00eetre. \u00c0 tout le moins, il devait en conna\u00eetre l\u2019existence et avoir pris position par rapport \u00e0 une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, il faut emprunter un chemin d\u00e9tourn\u00e9, en examinant les citations et allusions li\u00e9es \u00e0 ce dialogue \u00e0 travers ses diff\u00e9rents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Ph\u00e9don et \u00e0 quelle fin ?\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d\u2019abord, j\u2019aimerais examiner l\u2019apport personnel de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, par rapport \u00e0 la tradition dans laquelle il s\u2019inscrit. Ensuite, plus particuli\u00e8rement, je voudrais \u00e9valuer la distance de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j\u2019esp\u00e8re contribuer \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension de la m\u00e9thode et de l\u2019originalit\u00e9 de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1412,"section_of":1411,"pages":"293-310","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1411,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Delcomminette_d'Hoine_Gavray2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"]}

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]

{"_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":["Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"]}

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]

{"_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":["Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"]}

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]

{"_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":["Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"]}

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]

{"_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":["Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle"]}

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]

{"_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":["Commentators on Aristotle"]}

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]

{"_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":["Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1473,"authors_free":[{"id":2549,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":543,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Aerts, Saskia","free_first_name":"Saskia","free_last_name":"Aerts","norm_person":{"id":543,"first_name":"Saskia","last_name":"Aerts","full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2550,"entry_id":1473,"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":2551,"entry_id":1473,"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":2552,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul","main_title":{"title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul"},"abstract":"Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nThe key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the \u2018harmony\u2019 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. \u2018Harmony\u2019 translates the Greek symph\u014dnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.\u00b9 However, the term \u2018harmony\u2019 is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept\u2014 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.\u00b2 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.\u00b3 Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this \u2018harmonizing tendency,\u2019 as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators\u2019 approaches.\u2074\r\n\r\nIn 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\u2019s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics.\u2075 Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of \u2018harmony\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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 \u2018merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.\u2019\u2076 Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nIn addition to showing the individuality of these commentators\u2019 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]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SGsawecaEHSN9gD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":543,"full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1473,"section_of":1474,"pages":"178-200","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\/ZaiPIkzZzpNqhmG","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":["Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul"]}

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]

{"_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":["Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles"]}

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]

{"_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":["Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1329","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1329,"authors_free":[{"id":1962,"entry_id":1329,"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":2381,"entry_id":1329,"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":2385,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":2386,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":455,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Weidtmann","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":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"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 erkl\u00e4rt, von denen alle anderen Realit\u00e4ten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebens\u00e4hnliche Kraft, die f\u00fcr die Sch\u00f6pfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1329,"section_of":1330,"pages":"241-253","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Platon und die Physis","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Koch2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AMVDL9mBzjUlvIg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1330,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"]}

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]

{"_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":["Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike"]}

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]

{"_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":["Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie"]}

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]

{"_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":["Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"]}

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]

{"_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":["Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"]}

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]

{"_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":["Diogenes revisited"]}

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]

{"_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":["Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"]}

Empedocles' Life Cycles, 2005
By: Sedley, David N., Pierrēs, Apostolos L. (Ed.)
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]

{"_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":["Empedocles' Life Cycles"]}

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]

{"_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":["Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction"]}

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]

{"_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":["Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"]}

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]

{"_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":["Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"]}

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]

{"_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":["Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"]}

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)

{"_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":["Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"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":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":["Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":582,"authors_free":[{"id":825,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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":2009,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2010,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2011,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden","main_title":{"title":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden"},"abstract":"Der Exkurs \u00fcber Chosroes, Uranius und die Philosophengesandtschaft der \r\nathenischen Neuplatoniker im Jahr 532 gestattet einen Einblick in die \r\nkulturellen Kontakte zwischen Rom und Persien im 6. Jahrhundert. Er zeigt, \r\nda\u00df es im R\u00f6mischen Reich eine weitverbreitete Kenntnis \u00fcber die Renaissance \r\nder Sasaniden unter Chosroes gab, auch wenn das Bild Persiens zum Teil \r\nidealisiert wurde. Die philosophische Bildung des Chosroes r\u00fchmten sowohl \r\nPerser als auch R\u00f6mer. Der Exkurs demonstriert das breite Interesse an der \r\nanderen Kultur, das sich besonders bei den Heiden fand. Schlie\u00dflich ver\u00ad\r\ndeutlicht er, da\u00df sich Persien im 6. Jahrhundert zunehmend zum Fluchtpunkt \r\nf\u00fcr Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem R\u00f6mischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":582,"section_of":380,"pages":"123-160","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":380,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuol\/Hartmann\/Luther2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rscXaDagl5S5H9Q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden"]}

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]

{"_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":["Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation"]}

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]

{"_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":["Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1500,"authors_free":[{"id":2604,"entry_id":1500,"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":2606,"entry_id":1500,"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}},{"id":2607,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2608,"entry_id":1500,"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}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"},"abstract":"This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 most celebrated legacy\u2014the 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\u2019 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.)\r\n\r\nThe passages translated here (T1\u20136) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant \u201cfragments\u201d of modern editions (65C, 66\u201369, and 71 in volume XIV = 104\u2013108 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\u2019s and Kidd\u2019s edition of Posidonius\u2019 fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by \/\/...\/\/ ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions.\r\n\r\nTo 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nInformation on this theory of the Earth\u2019s 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\u2013485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490\u2013560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it.\r\n\r\nEven 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\u2019 citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo (T4\u20136), and one in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position.\r\n\r\nIn what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato\u2019s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8\u2013C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides\u2019 theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth.\r\n\r\nFinally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5\u20136) appended to discussions of Aristotle\u2019s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo.\r\n\r\nIn an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides\u2019 theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges\u2014first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)\u2014is a methodological rationale for Heraclides\u2019 theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, \u201cto save the phenomena.\u201d\r\n\r\nYet 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\u2019 theory of the Earth\u2019s 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\u2019 theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations.\r\n\r\nSo, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides\u2019 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.\r\n[conclusion p. 155-158]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2YB813ju2mFR0oM","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"}},{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1500,"section_of":1501,"pages":"155-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1501,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S3mQv3IiJFEaVfY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"]}

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]

{"_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":["How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility"]}

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]

{"_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":["Iamblichus on Soul"]}

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]

{"_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":["Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"]}

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]

{"_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":["Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio"]}

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]

{"_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":["In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"]}

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]

{"_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":["Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}

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]

{"_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":["Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus"]}

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]

{"_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":["John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"]}

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]

{"_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":["Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism"]}

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]

{"_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":["L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"946","_score":null,"_source":{"id":946,"authors_free":[{"id":1413,"entry_id":946,"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}},{"id":1414,"entry_id":946,"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":1415,"entry_id":946,"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":1416,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale","main_title":{"title":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, qui compare la vie humaine \u00e0 un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d\u2019une interpr\u00e9tation all\u00e9gorique de la parabole qui s\u2019efforce de nous en faire d\u00e9couvrir le sens cach\u00e9. En voici la traduction :\r\n\r\n \"Or, il me semble qu\u2019il a introduit un exemple imagin\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait appropri\u00e9e. Car la mer, parce qu\u2019elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agit\u00e9es, qu\u2019elle change d\u2019une mani\u00e8re si vari\u00e9e, qu\u2019elle \u00e9touffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l\u2019analogie qu\u2019elle pr\u00e9sente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu\u2019elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les \u00e2mes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d\u2019Heimarmen\u00ea ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait \u00eatre le dieu, lui qui, par ses pr\u00e9voyantes pens\u00e9es, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d\u2019une mani\u00e8re adapt\u00e9e au m\u00e9rite (kat\u2019 axian) de chacun, l\u2019univers et la descente des \u00e2mes dans le devenir.\r\n\r\n L\u2019entr\u00e9e du navire au port, c\u2019est la mise en place des \u00e2mes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c\u2019est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendr\u00e9es en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d\u2019eau, c\u2019est le soin des choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu\u2019y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus n\u00e9cessaire que l\u2019eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l\u2019on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-m\u00eame l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019une mani\u00e8re appropri\u00e9e : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propri\u00e9t\u00e9, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont donn\u00e9es 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.\r\n\r\n Le principal, en effet, c\u2019est d\u2019\u00eatre tendu et tourn\u00e9 perp\u00e9tuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut m\u00eame pas s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 ces choses, comme si elles \u00e9taient n\u00e9cessaires de la m\u00eame mani\u00e8re que la provision d\u2019eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose v\u00e9ritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile \u00e0 la vie.\" [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UWgctr8ErscwqR3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":946,"section_of":218,"pages":"143-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale"]}

La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs , 2007
By: Goulet, Richard, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)
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]

{"_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":["La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs "]}

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)

{"_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":["La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"]}

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]

{"_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":["La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}

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]

{"_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":["La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara"]}

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]

{"_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":["Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"948","_score":null,"_source":{"id":948,"authors_free":[{"id":1421,"entry_id":948,"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}},{"id":1422,"entry_id":948,"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":1423,"entry_id":948,"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":1424,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb"},"abstract":"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 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), 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]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":948,"section_of":218,"pages":"103-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"782","_score":null,"_source":{"id":782,"authors_free":[{"id":1148,"entry_id":782,"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}},{"id":1149,"entry_id":782,"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":1150,"entry_id":782,"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":1151,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","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 commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien. Il s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : Comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la metriopathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant). Mais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique et Proclus. David (\u00c9lias) pour sa part nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af). Nous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d\u2019exhortations non techniques aptes \u00e0 fournir l\u2019instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire dont le d\u00e9butant en philosophie devait d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00eatre impr\u00e9gn\u00e9. D\u00e8s lors, il fallait qu\u2019il interpr\u00e8te le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l\u2019\u00e9thique sto\u00efcienne culminant dans l\u2019apatheia du sage sto\u00efcien, comme cela aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne.\r\n\r\nEn proc\u00e9dant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le syst\u00e8me \u00e9thique n\u00e9oplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait \u00e9tonnante et sans jointure apparente, l\u2019\u00e9thique du sto\u00efcisme, \u00e9videmment sans ses bases mat\u00e9rialistes, l\u2019\u00e9thique de l\u2019Ancienne Acad\u00e9mie et l\u2019\u00e9thique p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. Le n\u00e9oplatonisme avait admis en effet, \u00e0 partir de Porphyre, l\u2019existence de quatre degr\u00e9s de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus \u00ab politiques \u00bb ou \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab pratiques \u00bb, impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. En revanche, les degr\u00e9s de vertu sup\u00e9rieurs se fondaient sur l\u2019apatheia sto\u00efcienne.\r\n\r\nComme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s\u2019adressaient \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants, cette \u0153uvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la pr\u00e9paration au premier degr\u00e9 des vertus, donc aux vertus \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab politiques \u00bb r\u00e9gies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caract\u00e9risent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropri\u00e9es, comme leur nom l\u2019indique, au citoyen vertueux, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00e0 quelqu\u2019un qui prend activement part \u00e0 la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d\u2019apr\u00e8s les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou m\u00eame les vertus th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques.\r\n\r\nL\u2019homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l\u2019explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-m\u00eame, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire sur son \u00e2me raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-m\u00eame, donc vers son \u00e2me raisonnable, de vouloir r\u00e9aliser cette \u00ab conversion \u00bb, est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu\u2019un qui est d\u00e9sormais d\u00e9sireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c\u2019est \u00e0 ce genre d\u2019hommes que s\u2019adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxi\u00e8me partie du Manuel (\u00e0 partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s\u2019agit pas de ceux qui seraient d\u00e9j\u00e0 en possession des vertus cathartiques ni m\u00eame des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progr\u00e8s vers l\u2019acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagn\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00e9tude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la m\u00eame la premi\u00e8re condition pour pouvoir plus tard, apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre longuement familiaris\u00e9s avec les \u00e9tudes philosophiques, acqu\u00e9rir les vertus cathartiques.\r\n\r\nLe Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te s\u2019adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une premi\u00e8re partie, \u00e0 ceux qui n\u2019ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer \u00e0 purifier leurs m\u0153urs et leur \u00e2me, autrement dit, \u00e0 soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles \u00e0 la raison. La deuxi\u00e8me partie concernerait ceux qui ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait des progr\u00e8s sur le chemin qui m\u00e8ne \u00e0 la domination des passions et commencent \u00e0 s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 la philosophie elle-m\u00eame. Dans les deux cas, il s\u2019agit de d\u00e9butants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s\u2019initier \u00e0 la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JJVi9durYJt0iuG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":782,"section_of":218,"pages":"47-87","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te"]}

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)

{"_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":["Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"]}

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]

{"_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":["Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes"]}

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.)
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]

{"_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":["Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"]}

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) 

{"_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":["Les fragments"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"947","_score":null,"_source":{"id":947,"authors_free":[{"id":1417,"entry_id":947,"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}},{"id":1418,"entry_id":947,"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":1419,"entry_id":947,"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":1420,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet","main_title":{"title":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet"},"abstract":"Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte \u00e0 la discipline du d\u00e9sir. Il invite, sous une forme imag\u00e9e, \u00e0 ne pas s\u2019attacher aux personnes qui nous sont ch\u00e8res, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires.\r\n\r\nDans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en pr\u00e9sence d\u2019une comparaison, parabole ou all\u00e9gorie. Une all\u00e9gorie est, pourrait-on dire, une m\u00e9taphore prolong\u00e9e. Les parties d\u2019un ensemble structur\u00e9 et coh\u00e9rent de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (A), ici l\u2019escale d\u2019un navire dans un port, correspondent terme \u00e0 terme aux parties d\u2019un autre ensemble structur\u00e9 de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (B), ici la vie humaine. L\u2019auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre \u00e0 son lecteur, que la conduite que l\u2019on est oblig\u00e9 d\u2019avoir dans l\u2019ensemble B doit \u00eatre analogue \u00e0 celle qui nous semble n\u00e9cessaire dans l\u2019ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":947,"section_of":218,"pages":"127-141","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet"]}

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]

{"_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":["Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie"]}

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]

{"_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":["Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"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}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. 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":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"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]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OLB13j4YVPx0XVb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"]}

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]

{"_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":["Movers and Shakers"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"614","_score":null,"_source":{"id":614,"authors_free":[{"id":869,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":870,"entry_id":614,"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":2226,"entry_id":614,"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":2227,"entry_id":614,"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":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius","main_title":{"title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius"},"abstract":"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]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":614,"section_of":613,"pages":"317\u2013342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":613,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Clucas2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J4IFZHaUYcFnYSe","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":613,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Studies in Intellectual History","volume":"198","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius"]}

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]

{"_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":["Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life"]}

Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, D'Ancona Costa, Cristina (Ed.)
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]

{"_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":["Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"]}

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]

{"_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":["On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius"]}

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]

{"_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":["Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators"]}

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]

{"_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":["Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"]}

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).

{"_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":["Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"]}

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)

{"_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":["Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics"]}

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]

{"_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":["Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"]}

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.]

{"_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":["Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander"]}

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]

{"_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":["Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","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}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"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":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s 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).\r\n\r\nThere 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.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s 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\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"]}

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]

{"_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":["Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne"]}

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]

{"_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":["Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul"]}

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]

{"_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":["Priscianus of Ludia"]}

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]

{"_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":["Priscien de Lydie"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1443","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1443,"authors_free":[{"id":2305,"entry_id":1443,"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":2306,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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":2307,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2308,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2309,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams","main_title":{"title":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams"},"abstract":"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:\r\n\r\nEine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, n\u00e4mlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und \u00dcberleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen.\r\n\r\nDie zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles\u2019 Lehre vom aktiven Geist.\r\n\r\nDiese \u00e4u\u00dferst knappe Charakterisierung der St\u00e4rken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift l\u00e4sst seine Schw\u00e4chen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung.\r\n\r\nPriskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, \u201edie \u00dcbereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben\u201c; anders gesagt, erkl\u00e4rt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst f\u00fcr die Wahrheit h\u00e4lt. Das wichtigste Kriterium f\u00fcr diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich.\r\n\r\nKonsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen h\u00e4ufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten k\u00f6nnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erkl\u00e4rt.\r\n\r\nTrotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenm\u00e4chtig sind, darf man nicht \u00fcbersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalit\u00e4t 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.\r\n\r\nInsofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel f\u00fcr einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, f\u00fcr den Aristoteles nicht nur \u201ePlatons bester Ausleger\u201c ist, sondern auch eine \u201eweitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail\u201c liefert, \u201ewas dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erkl\u00e4rte\u201c.\r\n\r\nAuf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was f\u00fcr ihn Anlass zu einer ausf\u00fchrlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":442,"full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1443,"section_of":246,"pages":"547-675","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":246,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Busche2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":246,"pubplace":"Hamburg","publisher":"Felix Meiner Verlag","series":"Philosophische Bibliothek","volume":"694","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams"]}

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]

{"_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":["Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise"]}

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.]

{"_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":["Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"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":"","free_last_name":"","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":2676,"entry_id":1535,"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":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","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":2678,"entry_id":1535,"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":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would 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\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s 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\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s 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\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, 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\u20139,30) 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.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, 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 (t\u00f4i 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nSince 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\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","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":["Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"945","_score":null,"_source":{"id":945,"authors_free":[{"id":1409,"entry_id":945,"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}},{"id":1410,"entry_id":945,"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":1411,"entry_id":945,"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":1412,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"Nous avons vu, \u00e0 l\u2019aide de plusieurs exemples, la mani\u00e8re dont le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius avait comment\u00e9 un texte sto\u00efcien. Nous avons constat\u00e9 que Simplicius ne peut s\u2019emp\u00eacher de r\u00e9introduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure o\u00f9 ses auditeurs ou lecteurs d\u00e9butants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes tr\u00e8s complexes, qui n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec le texte du Manuel.\r\n\r\nLes conclusions que l\u2019on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur \u00c9pict\u00e8te, mais \u00e9galement pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caract\u00e9rise la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius commentant les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, c\u2019est la simplicit\u00e9 et l\u2019objectivit\u00e9. Il en conclut que, puisque l\u2019auteur du commentaire du De anima d\u2019Aristote attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Simplicius donne libre cours \u00e0 son interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut \u00eatre l\u2019auteur de ce commentaire.\r\n\r\nIl est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les \u0153uvres de logique, le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d\u2019occasions d\u2019introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va d\u00e9j\u00e0 autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du De anima, trait\u00e9 qui se pla\u00e7ait, dans le cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien, imm\u00e9diatement avant la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, et qui abordait des probl\u00e8mes m\u00e9taphysiques, la situation \u00e9tait toute diff\u00e9rente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes diff\u00e9raient largement de celles d\u2019Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver \u00e0 chaque pas l\u2019harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote revenait \u00e0 un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente diff\u00e9rence de m\u00e9thode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l\u2019\u00e2me que professaient Aristote et les n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nPlus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, quand on compare la position d\u2019un sto\u00efcien comme \u00c9pict\u00e8te concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d\u2019un n\u00e9oplatonicien, en l\u2019occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d\u2019autonomie \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard du divin chez le philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien. Le sto\u00efcien, en s\u2019appuyant exclusivement sur la coh\u00e9rence de son syst\u00e8me et sur la force de sa raison, qu\u2019il croit apte \u00e0 diriger une vie vertueuse s\u2019il est d\u00e9cid\u00e9 \u00e0 la suivre, se consid\u00e8re ma\u00eetre autonome de sa relation \u00e0 Dieu. La question du salut de son \u00e2me apr\u00e8s sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui.\r\n\r\nIl en va autrement du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son \u00e2me, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement syst\u00e9matis\u00e9e et abstraite et d\u2019une vie vertueuse, de l\u2019aide des dieux, en partie obtenue gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 des rites qu\u2019il croit transmis par des \u00ab r\u00e9v\u00e9lations \u00bb. Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses pa\u00efennes, ressemble finalement \u00e0 celle du christianisme recourant \u00e0 des rites et des sacrements. \u00c0 vrai dire, lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la th\u00e9urgie correspondant \u00e0 son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, \u00e0 une union mystique avec l\u2019Un ou l\u2019Ineffable.\r\n\r\nMais tandis que Plotin arrivait \u00e0 cette union par des moyens autonomes, les n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e0 partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d\u2019y arriver tout \u00e0 fait par eux-m\u00eames ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs \u00e2mes dans leur patrie sans l\u2019aide d\u2019un certain rituel. Il persiste n\u00e9anmoins de grandes diff\u00e9rences entre la \u00ab religion \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d\u2019autres religions qui ont la pr\u00e9tention de poss\u00e9der seules la v\u00e9rit\u00e9. La plus importante de ces diff\u00e9rences, \u00e0 mes yeux, consiste en la tol\u00e9rance et l\u2019ouverture d\u2019esprit vis-\u00e0-vis des religions \u00e9trang\u00e8res.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu comment les n\u00e9oplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des diff\u00e9rents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences \u00e9taient des manifestations d\u2019une m\u00eame divinit\u00e9, appropri\u00e9es \u00e0 la diversit\u00e9 des r\u00e9gions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux diff\u00e9rentes religions localement implant\u00e9es une sorte d\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9 de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu\u2019on arrivait en qualit\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9tranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux diff\u00e9rent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et m\u00eame s\u2019y conformer au moins ext\u00e9rieurement.\r\n\r\nCet esprit d\u2019ouverture et de tol\u00e9rance religieuse s\u2019est largement perdu avec la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 gr\u00e9co-romaine et nous fait tellement d\u00e9faut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi \u00c9pict\u00e8te, auraient certainement approuv\u00e9 les mots du pr\u00e9fet pa\u00efen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la d\u00e9cision de l\u2019empereur chr\u00e9tien de faire enlever de la salle du S\u00e9nat romain l\u2019autel de la Victoire :\r\n\r\n \u00ab Nous contemplons les m\u00eames astres, le ciel nous est commun, le m\u00eame monde nous enveloppe. Qu\u2019importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 ? \u00c0 un si grand myst\u00e8re on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. \u00bb [conclusion p. 208-211]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":945,"section_of":218,"pages":"183-211","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius"]}

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]

{"_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":["Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote"]}

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.]

{"_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":["Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico"]}

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]

{"_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":["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]

{"_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":["Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius de Cilicie"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius of Cilicia"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"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":2357,"entry_id":1206,"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":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":2368,"entry_id":1206,"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":2369,"entry_id":1206,"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":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","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":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' 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 En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading 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\u2014at times repetitive\u2014but 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.\r\n\r\nBut 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\u2014as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","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. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius of Kilikia"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 "]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1538","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1538,"authors_free":[{"id":2683,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":568,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","free_first_name":"Dmitri","free_last_name":"Nikulin","norm_person":{"id":568,"first_name":"Dmitri","last_name":"Nikulin","full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/17302503X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2687,"entry_id":1538,"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":2688,"entry_id":1538,"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":2689,"entry_id":1538,"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":"Simplicius on the Void","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Void"},"abstract":"The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle\u2019s 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]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":568,"full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1538,"section_of":1539,"pages":"231-255","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1539,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike. Corporeit\u00e0 nella filosofia tardoantica","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn2020","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mWbfOvt30jR6Y1U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1539,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"Academia philosophical studies","volume":"71","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius on the Void"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"]}

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)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1576","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1576,"authors_free":[{"id":2752,"entry_id":1576,"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":2753,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2754,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2755,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jsGhr81iLqtnRuC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1576,"section_of":1573,"pages":"269-291","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'"]}

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]

{"_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":["Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"767","_score":null,"_source":{"id":767,"authors_free":[{"id":1131,"entry_id":767,"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":2326,"entry_id":767,"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}},{"id":2327,"entry_id":767,"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":2328,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1.","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1."},"abstract":"The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius\u2019 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\u2019 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\u2019 \"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]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":767,"section_of":121,"pages":"1-16","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":121,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.1-5\u2019","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bodn\u00e1r\/Chase\/Share2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LJFtY7RnI5jMqhW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":121,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1."]}

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]

{"_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":["Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione"]}

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]

{"_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":["Speculating about Diogenes"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"482","_score":null,"_source":{"id":482,"authors_free":[{"id":653,"entry_id":482,"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":654,"entry_id":482,"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":2424,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":2425,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"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":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle"},"abstract":"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.\r\n\r\nAnd 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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 \u201cchallenging literary texts.\u201d It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required.\r\n\r\nTo play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: \u201cIn this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man\u2019s writings admit of more than one interpretation.\u201d 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.\r\n\r\nTo 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\u2019 argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed.\r\n\r\nAll participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nFor 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.\r\n\r\nWhen commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) and profound (\u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, \u201cfind pleasure in plausible arguments,\u201d based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. \u201cThe more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn this sense, I would also like to be a \u2018profound\u2019 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.\r\n\r\nFor, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: \u201cWhat do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?\u201d [conclusion p. 490-492]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":479,"full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":482,"section_of":322,"pages":"469-494","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":322,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie 2010","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0QiKNhBCl16gJMn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":322,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"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}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"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":1557,"entry_id":1029,"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":1558,"entry_id":1029,"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":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis"]}

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)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1575","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1575,"authors_free":[{"id":2748,"entry_id":1575,"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":2749,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2750,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2751,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/r4x9UiKcqVzpdhL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1575,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"245","_score":null,"_source":{"id":245,"authors_free":[{"id":314,"entry_id":245,"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":2775,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Christian Brockmann","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":null},{"id":2776,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Daniel Deckers ","free_first_name":"Daniel ","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":null},{"id":2777,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stefano Valente","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"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\u2019s treatiseOn the Soulamong Byzantine and Renaissancescholars.3For practical reasons, I keep using in this contribution the author\u2019sname \u2018Simplicius\u2019 as it is known in the tradition but put it between singlequotations marks to distinguish him from the real Simplicius. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j1NGkXq4FVGx9hw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":245,"pubplace":"","publisher":"","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":245,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":245,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"unpublished","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":["The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"]}

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]

{"_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":["The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"]}

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)

{"_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":["The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius"]}

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":["The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy"]}

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]

{"_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":["The historiographical project of the Lyceum"]}

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]

{"_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":["The history of astronomy"]}

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]

{"_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":["The history of geometry"]}

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]

{"_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":["The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition"]}

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]

{"_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":["The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"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":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2066,"entry_id":1193,"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}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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 koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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 koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis 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.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. 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 koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, 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]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"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}}},"article":null},"sort":["The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"]}

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]

{"_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":["Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"]}

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)
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]

{"_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":["Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply."]}

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]

{"_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":["Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition"]}

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]

{"_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":["Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie"]}

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]

{"_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":["Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19"]}

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]

{"_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":["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"]}

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]

{"_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":["Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2"]}

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]

{"_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":["Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle"]}

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]

{"_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":["Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}

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]

{"_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":["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"]}

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]

{"_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":["What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators"]}

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]

{"_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":["What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers"]}

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]

{"_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":["When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"]}

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]

{"_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":["Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?"]}

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]

{"_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":["Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius"]}

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.)
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]

{"_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":["William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides"]}

§ 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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"653","_score":null,"_source":{"id":653,"authors_free":[{"id":938,"entry_id":653,"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":939,"entry_id":653,"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":940,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"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":941,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"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":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios"},"abstract":"Der Eintrag bietet eine ausf\u00fchrliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschlie\u00dflich einer Diskussion \u00fcber sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios\u2019 Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manich\u00e4ismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":386,"full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":387,"full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":653,"section_of":288,"pages":"2060-2084","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":288,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","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)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rieweg\/Horn\/Wyrma2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":288,"pubplace":"Basel","publisher":"Schwabe","series":"","volume":"5\/3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u00a7 162. Simplikios"]}

§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)

{"_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":["\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"]}

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]

{"_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":["\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno"]}

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]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"940","_score":null,"_source":{"id":940,"authors_free":[{"id":1395,"entry_id":940,"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":1396,"entry_id":940,"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":1397,"entry_id":940,"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":1398,"entry_id":940,"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":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)","main_title":{"title":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)"},"abstract":"La longue digression introduite par Simplicius dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote, qui est consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 la notion de \u00ab lieu \u00bb et qui prend la suite de l\u2019explication continue du texte m\u00eame d\u2019Aristote (Physique IV 1-5, 208a27 - 213a11), est traditionnellement d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le titre (sans support dans la tradition manuscrite) de Corollarium de loco. Avec le Corollarium de tempore, qui accompagne parall\u00e8lement l\u2019explication du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien du temps (Physique IV 10-14, 217b29 - 224a17), il constitue un diptyque essentiel pour notre connaissance de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne de la Nature, car il offre sur les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de l\u2019espace et du temps des expos\u00e9s d\u2019importance majeure.\r\n\r\nLe Corollarium de loco pr\u00e9sente, sur 45 pages des CAG, une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Damascius (et Simplicius lui-m\u00eame), qui nous a conserv\u00e9 de pr\u00e9cieux fragments de deux trait\u00e9s perdus de Proclus et de Damascius, et suit un plan en deux parties tr\u00e8s nettement distingu\u00e9es. Une section dialectique, tout d\u2019abord, dans laquelle Simplicius m\u00e8ne un examen critique des contradictions du dossier aristot\u00e9licien (Physique et De caelo), en r\u00e9pondant au traitement par Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise de la magna quaestio. Il discute dans cette premi\u00e8re partie les doctrines ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 celle de Damascius (d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Syrianus) et s\u2019attache \u00e0 comprendre les raisons de leur \u00e9chec.\r\n\r\nVient ensuite une pars construens, ou plut\u00f4t un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la doctrine v\u00e9ridique du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, celle de Damascius, que Simplicius retouche et pr\u00e9cise. Dans la premi\u00e8re partie, dialectique, Simplicius consacre pr\u00e8s de 13 pages (de l\u2019\u00e9dition Diels), soit pr\u00e8s du tiers de l\u2019ensemble de la digression, \u00e0 l\u2019examen critique des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb qui se sont int\u00e9ress\u00e9es \u00e0 un type de d\u00e9finition rejet\u00e9 (et n\u00e9glig\u00e9) par Aristote, celui qui fait du lieu un \u00ab espace \u00bb ou une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb. La discussion de ces doctrines (repr\u00e9sent\u00e9es sous des formes diverses par D\u00e9mocrite, Straton de Lampsaque, Syrianus, et Proclus) est particuli\u00e8rement importante car, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 une m\u00e9thode d\u2019origine aristot\u00e9licienne, l\u2019examen dialectique des opinions consiste non seulement en une critique et une r\u00e9futation, mais vise aussi \u00e0 extraire la part de v\u00e9rit\u00e9 contenue dans les opinions examin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLa lecture d\u2019ensemble de la digression permet de comprendre que Simplicius a pr\u00eat\u00e9 un int\u00e9r\u00eat tout particulier aux d\u00e9finitions du \u00ab lieu \u00bb comme \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb (corporelle ou incorporelle) parce qu\u2019elles pr\u00e9figuraient en quelque sorte \u2013 de fa\u00e7on certes maladroite et fautive \u2013 la doctrine de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. On passe alors de la consid\u00e9ration de l\u2019\u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb \u00e0 celle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne. En effet, lorsqu\u2019il en vient \u00e0 l\u2019expos\u00e9 complet de la doctrine de Damascius, Simplicius met en lumi\u00e8re le fait qu\u2019il y a une liaison fondamentale entre le \u00ab lieu \u00bb et la \u00ab distension \u00bb, qui se r\u00e9alise dans la Procession. Le lieu est une d\u00e9termination \u00ab in\u00e9tendue \u00bb, qui \u00ab \u0153uvre \u00e0 la perfection des corps \u00bb, et plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment il est la \u00ab mesure rassemblante \u00bb d\u2019une modalit\u00e9 particuli\u00e8re de la \u00ab distension \u00bb, d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le terme de \u00ab disposition \u00bb : disposition des parties d\u2019une totalit\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de cette totalit\u00e9 ou encore position d\u2019un corps \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un autre corps envisag\u00e9 comme totalit\u00e9 plus englobante.\r\n\r\nMalgr\u00e9 l\u2019autorit\u00e9 dont Proclus est rev\u00eatu aux yeux de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, et malgr\u00e9 le respect profond que Simplicius \u00e9prouve pour lui, il lui importe ici de r\u00e9futer que le lieu soit un corps, f\u00fbt-ce un corps immat\u00e9riel, afin que le lieu puisse ult\u00e9rieurement \u00eatre d\u00e9fini comme une mesure in\u00e9tendue et incorporelle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb des corps (Damascius). Dans le trait\u00e9 perdu dont des passages centraux sont conserv\u00e9s par Simplicius, Proclus d\u00e9montre sa doctrine par la conjonction d\u2019une d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique et apodictique, et par un recours \u00e0 deux confirmations offertes par des autorit\u00e9s sacr\u00e9es : la Raison rencontre la R\u00e9v\u00e9lation.\r\n\r\nLa premi\u00e8re d\u00e9marche part de pr\u00e9misses aristot\u00e9liciennes (Physique IV 4, 212a2-6). Elle promeut l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle le \u00ab lieu \u00bb serait une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb, et elle d\u00e9montre que c\u2019est une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb corporelle, comprise comme sph\u00e8re de lumi\u00e8re pure co\u00efncidant avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique : un corps immobile, indivisible, immat\u00e9riel. La seconde d\u00e9marche consiste \u00e0 poser la concordance de cette conclusion rationnelle avec les donn\u00e9es du mythe d\u2019Er dans la R\u00e9publique, et avec le sens attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 un vers chalda\u00efque qui \u00e9nonce de fa\u00e7on myst\u00e9rieuse que l\u2019\u00c2me du Monde \u00ab anime de fond en comble lumi\u00e8re, feu, \u00e9ther, mondes \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLe lieu-lumi\u00e8re d\u00e9montr\u00e9 par la proc\u00e9dure rationnelle est enseign\u00e9 par le sens profond (et cach\u00e9) que l\u2019on d\u00e9c\u00e8le dans le mythe (c\u2019est la colonne de lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X 616b4-c4) et dans la parole m\u00eame des dieux. Le commentaire de Proclus sur la R\u00e9publique identifie parall\u00e8lement la lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X au lieu du Ciel, r\u00e9affirme son identit\u00e9 avec la lumi\u00e8re chalda\u00efque, et fait r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 ce trait\u00e9 en offrant une doctrine tout \u00e0 fait concordante.\r\n\r\nL\u2019autorit\u00e9 des Oracles Chalda\u00efques est pour les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de cette \u00e9poque la source ultime de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9, et Simplicius engage contre Proclus, pas \u00e0 pas, une longue discussion ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique sur le sens de cet Oracle. Cette discussion est un document exceptionnel sur l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat port\u00e9 aux Oracles Chalda\u00efques par Simplicius, au sein m\u00eame d\u2019un commentaire sur Aristote et sur une question de physique.\r\n\r\nL\u2019objet des pages qui suivent est de proposer une traduction comment\u00e9e de l\u2019ensemble du texte de Simplicius (In Phys. 611,8 - 618,7 D.), de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 montrer l\u2019osmose entre la d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique de Simplicius (et de Proclus), qui correspond \u00e0 une recherche de Physique, et l\u2019op\u00e9ration herm\u00e9neutique appliqu\u00e9e \u00e0 une parole oraculaire, laquelle est une confirmation d\u2019un raisonnement et une exp\u00e9rience de foi puisqu\u2019elle porte sur un objet divin. La traduction du texte de Simplicius sera pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9e de quelques remarques pr\u00e9liminaires sur l\u2019Oracle 51. Le texte grec de Simplicius est accessible \u00e0 la fois dans l\u2019\u00e9dition de Diels et dans l\u2019\u00e9dition mise en ligne d\u00e9j\u00e0 mentionn\u00e9e (\u00e9d. Golitsis-Hoffmann). [introduction p. 101-106]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/32ZuxPLp2VNh3t0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"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":null,"booksection":{"id":940,"section_of":357,"pages":"101-152","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":357,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Oracles Chalda\u00efques: fragments et philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lecerf2014b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","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]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/w8DvrIrkCyncwcE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":357,"pubplace":"Heidelberg","publisher":"Winter","series":"Bibliotheca Chaldaica","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)"]}

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)

{"_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":["\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"]}

“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].

{"_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":["\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1