Author 102
Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25–161.20, 2024
By: Anna Afonasina
Title Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25–161.20
Type Article
Language English
Date 2024
Journal Shagi/Steps
Volume 10
Issue 2
Pages 183-196
Categories no categories
Author(s) Anna Afonasina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The present study attempts to show what influence a commentary can have on the formation of ideas about a preceding philosophical tradition. A case in point is Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s “Physics” and on fragments of Empedocles’ poem. The selected passage, though small in size, is quite remarkable in terms of content and the way Simplicius deals with it. With regard to content, we are dealing here with one of the fundamental problematic plots of Empedocles’ philosophy about the alternate rule of Love and Strife. But Simplicius adds to this his own view of Empedocles’ philosophy, dictated by his desire to harmonize the views of all the pagan philosophers and place them within a single consistent scheme. Simplicius wanted to counterpose something to Christianity, which was gaining in strength, and to show that all Greek philosophy developed along a certain path and contains no internal disagreements. On the one hand, Simplicius has preserved for us very valuable material — fairly lengthy sections of the text of Empedocles’ poem. On the other hand, wishing to implement his program, Simplicius chose those fragments of the poem that fit well into it. Therefore, the question arises whether we should take into account the context in which the fragments are quoted, or simply extract from the general body of the commentary those fragments of Empedocles’ poem that we need and consider them independently? [author's abstrac]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1580","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1580,"authors_free":[{"id":2761,"entry_id":1580,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Anna Afonasina","free_first_name":"Anna ","free_last_name":"Afonasina","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25\u2013161.20","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25\u2013161.20"},"abstract":"The present study attempts to show what influence a\r\ncommentary can have on the formation of ideas about a preceding\r\nphilosophical tradition. A case in point is Simplicius\u2019 commentary\r\non Aristotle\u2019s \u201cPhysics\u201d and on fragments of Empedocles\u2019 poem.\r\nThe selected passage, though small in size, is quite remarkable in\r\nterms of content and the way Simplicius deals with it. With regard\r\nto content, we are dealing here with one of the fundamental problematic\r\nplots of Empedocles\u2019 philosophy about the alternate rule of\r\nLove and Strife. But Simplicius adds to this his own view of Empedocles\u2019\r\nphilosophy, dictated by his desire to harmonize the views of\r\nall the pagan philosophers and place them within a single consistent\r\nscheme. Simplicius wanted to counterpose something to Christianity,\r\nwhich was gaining in strength, and to show that all Greek\r\nphilosophy developed along a certain path and contains no internal\r\ndisagreements. On the one hand, Simplicius has preserved for us\r\nvery valuable material \u2014 fairly lengthy sections of the text of Empedocles\u2019\r\npoem. On the other hand, wishing to implement his program,\r\nSimplicius chose those fragments of the poem that fit well\r\ninto it. Therefore, the question arises whether we should take into\r\naccount the context in which the fragments are quoted, or simply\r\nextract from the general body of the commentary those fragments\r\nof Empedocles\u2019 poem that we need and consider them independently? [author's abstrac]","btype":3,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GQwsce7zWyeDLxe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1580,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Shagi\/Steps","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"183-196"}},"sort":[2024]}

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

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1555","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1555,"authors_free":[{"id":2718,"entry_id":1555,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kr\u00e4mer, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Kr\u00e4mer","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)","main_title":{"title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CjtWoBp8Z2FqtLn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1555,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hyperboreus","volume":"28","issue":"1","pages":"111-122"}},"sort":[2022]}

Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator, 2021
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume 24
Issue 1
Pages 210-241
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century, and both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school’s attitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius, changed markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist lectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their construction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of demonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the text lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority continues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal validity.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1464","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1464,"authors_free":[{"id":2537,"entry_id":1464,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"},"abstract":"Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,\r\nand both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school\u2019s\r\nattitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,\r\nchanged markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist\r\nlectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their\r\nconstruction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of\r\ndemonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the\r\ntext lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority\r\ncontinues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal\r\nvalidity.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5sE7J9nmDwQKOuK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1464,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"210-241"}},"sort":[2021]}

Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 2021
By: Harari, Orna
Title Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume 24
Issue 1
Pages 122-139
Categories no categories
Author(s) Harari, Orna
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius’ use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle’s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius’ assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle’s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle’s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach. [conclusion, p. 138]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1463","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1463,"authors_free":[{"id":2536,"entry_id":1463,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius\u2019 use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle\u2019s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius\u2019 assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle\u2019s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle\u2019s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach. [conclusion, p. 138]","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mWf9pkyGLYXgUke","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1463,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"122-139"}},"sort":[2021]}

The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima, 2020
By: Gabor, Gary
Title The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima
Type Article
Language English
Date 2020
Journal Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
Volume 35
Issue 1
Pages 1-22
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim­plicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius’s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius’s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1466","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1466,"authors_free":[{"id":2539,"entry_id":1466,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim\u00adplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius\u2019s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius\u2019s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/s9FnHJ01Q1rEt0h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1466,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":[2020]}

Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima, 2020
By: Miller, Dana R.
Title Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima
Type Article
Language English
Date 2020
Journal Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
Volume 35
Issue 2
Pages 23-27
Categories no categories
Author(s) Miller, Dana R.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition’s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius’s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1467","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1467,"authors_free":[{"id":2540,"entry_id":1467,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":539,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Miller, Dana R.","free_first_name":"Dana R.","free_last_name":"Miller","norm_person":{"id":539,"first_name":"Dana R.","last_name":"Miller","full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128406704","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition\u2019s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius\u2019s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences. ","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KRndYATfooFjPy6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":539,"full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1467,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"35","issue":"2","pages":"23-27"}},"sort":[2020]}

Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances, 2019
By: Schwark, Marina
Title Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances
Type Article
Language English
Date 2019
Journal Elenchos
Volume 40
Issue 2
Pages 401-429
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schwark, Marina
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form ‘universal,’it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species–form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius’ commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating accidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual’s form coordinates the individual’s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter–form compound can assume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory of individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual’s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1377","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1377,"authors_free":[{"id":2121,"entry_id":1377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances"},"abstract":"In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form \u2018universal,\u2019it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species\u2013form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius\u2019 commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating\r\naccidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual\u2019s form coordinates the individual\u2019s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter\u2013form compound can\r\nassume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory\r\nof individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual\u2019s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lyFogK56o18nE5W","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1377,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"401-429"}},"sort":[2019]}

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

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1541","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1541,"authors_free":[{"id":2691,"entry_id":1541,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mouzala, Melina G. ","free_first_name":"Melina G.","free_last_name":"Mouzala","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3"},"abstract":"\r\n","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RTSyFVdFmVxRmDJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1541,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Analogia","volume":"7","issue":"Byzantine Aristotle","pages":"43-82"}},"sort":[2019]}

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

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1554","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1554,"authors_free":[{"id":2717,"entry_id":1554,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)","main_title":{"title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1554,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Epekeina. International Journal of Ontology History and Critics","volume":"10","issue":"1","pages":"1-32"}},"sort":[2019]}

Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire, 2018
By: Menn, Stephen
Title Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire
Type Article
Language English
Date 2018
Journal Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume 29
Pages 13-43
Categories no categories
Author(s) Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry’s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases building on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander’s and Porphyry’s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic XeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/f40u6koKhn1exfj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":[2018]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 15
“Creatio ex nihilo”: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages, 2012
By: Gleede, Benjamin
Title “Creatio ex nihilo”: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages
Type Article
Language English
Date 2012
Journal Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume 22
Pages 91-117
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gleede, Benjamin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato’s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle’s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-Fārābī in his exposition of Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1416","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1416,"authors_free":[{"id":2217,"entry_id":1416,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":395,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Gleede","norm_person":{"id":395,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Gleede","full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138770468","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages","main_title":{"title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages"},"abstract":"The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato\u2019s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle\u2019s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b in his exposition of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/643p7NfjbSkgI3O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":395,"full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1416,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"22","issue":"","pages":"91-117"}},"sort":[" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages"]}

A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus, 2001
By: Yavetz, Ido
Title A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus
Type Article
Language English
Date 2001
Journal Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Volume 56
Issue 1
Pages 69-93
Categories no categories
Author(s) Yavetz, Ido
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The geometry of the alternative reconstruction of Eudoxan planetary theory is studied. It is 
shown that in this framework the hippopede acquires an analytical role, consolidating the theory's geometrical underpinnings. This removes the main point of incompatibility between the alternative reconstruction and Simplicius's account of Eudoxan planetary astronomy. The analysis also suggests a compass and straight-edge procedure for drawing a point by point outline of the retrograde loop created by any given arrangement of the three inner spheres. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"839","_score":null,"_source":{"id":839,"authors_free":[{"id":1243,"entry_id":839,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":366,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yavetz, Ido","free_first_name":"Ido","free_last_name":"Yavetz","norm_person":{"id":366,"first_name":" Ido","last_name":"Yavetz","full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156978416","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus","main_title":{"title":"A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus"},"abstract":"The geometry of the alternative reconstruction of Eudoxan planetary theory is studied. It is \r\nshown that in this framework the hippopede acquires an analytical role, consolidating the theory's geometrical underpinnings. This removes the main point of incompatibility between the alternative reconstruction and Simplicius's account of Eudoxan planetary astronomy. The analysis also suggests a compass and straight-edge procedure for drawing a point by point outline of the retrograde loop created by any given arrangement of the three inner spheres. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tJW5mbpQNJmMJhi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":366,"full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":839,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"56","issue":"1","pages":"69-93"}},"sort":["A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus"]}

Addenda Eudemea, 2006
By: Baltussen, Han
Title Addenda Eudemea
Type Article
Language English
Date 2006
Journal Leeds International Classical Studies
Volume 5
Issue 1
Pages 1-28
Categories no categories
Author(s) Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This  paper  presents  16  fragments  of  the  Peripatetic  philosopher  Eudemus  (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised  1969),  but  which  had  been  signalled  in  passing  by  De  Lacy  (1957)  and  Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these  passages.  Their  importance  lies  in  bringing  greater  comprehensiveness  to  the  collection,  offering  at  least  five  additional  (near)  quotations,  and  illustrating  the  new  trend  in  fragment  studies  to  contextualize  fragments  on  several  levels  in  order  to  gain  further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1119","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1119,"authors_free":[{"id":1692,"entry_id":1119,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addenda Eudemea","main_title":{"title":"Addenda Eudemea"},"abstract":"This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eI5Vl8PkHDDBXGU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1119,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Leeds International Classical Studies","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"1-28"}},"sort":["Addenda Eudemea"]}

Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming), 2008
By: Chase, Michael
Title Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)
Type Article
Language French
Date 2008
Categories no categories
Author(s) Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The text discusses Albert the Great's arguments in his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge, focusing on the second of the three questions Porphyry posed about universals: whether they are corporeal or incorporeal. Albert attributes the idea of the separate existence of lines and surfaces in mathematical bodies to Plato. This attribution is problematic, but it is not absurd to suggest that Plato taught such doctrines, according to the Tübingen School's work on Plato's unwritten teachings. The text suggests that Albert's presentation of Plato's philosophy reflects his reliance on difficult translations of Aristotle and his commentators, rather than direct engagement with Plato's dialogues. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1259,"authors_free":[{"id":1838,"entry_id":1259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)","main_title":{"title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)"},"abstract":"The text discusses Albert the Great's arguments in his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge, focusing on the second of the three questions Porphyry posed about universals: whether they are corporeal or incorporeal. Albert attributes the idea of the separate existence of lines and surfaces in mathematical bodies to Plato. This attribution is problematic, but it is not absurd to suggest that Plato taught such doctrines, according to the T\u00fcbingen School's work on Plato's unwritten teachings. The text suggests that Albert's presentation of Plato's philosophy reflects his reliance on difficult translations of Aristotle and his commentators, rather than direct engagement with Plato's dialogues. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xQTHT9jCvKbdAcS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)"]}

Alexander on Physics 2.9, 2012
By: Sharples, Robert W.
Title Alexander on Physics 2.9
Type Article
Language English
Date 2012
Journal Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Volume 55
Issue 1
Pages 19-30
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I  want  to  draw  your  attention  today  to  a  report  of  Alexander  in  Simplicius’s  Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included -  and  I  have rather less excuse than  most,  for,  as we shall  see, the report connects  directly with  issues  about  which  I  have  written  in  other  contexts.  That  was  concerned  with  On coming-to-be  and  passing-away  [hereafter  GC]  2.11,  with  Philoponus’s  commentary thereon,  and  with  Alexander’s  discussion  in  some  of the  Quaestiones\  the  present  paper, with Simplicius’s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9; Alexander’s GC commentary, 
and the relevant part of his Physics commentary, are lost. [Introduction, p. 19]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1172","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1172,"authors_free":[{"id":1747,"entry_id":1172,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9","main_title":{"title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9"},"abstract":"I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius\u2019s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included - and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On coming-to-be and passing-away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus\u2019s commentary thereon, and with Alexander\u2019s discussion in some of the Quaestiones\\ the present paper, with Simplicius\u2019s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9; Alexander\u2019s GC commentary, \r\nand the relevant part of his Physics commentary, are lost. [Introduction, p. 19]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Uk1uUvOIUNKK2lk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1172,"section_of":1171,"pages":"19-30","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1172,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"19-30"}},"sort":["Alexander on Physics 2.9"]}

Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile, 2002
By: Kukkonen, Taneli
Title Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile
Type Article
Language English
Date 2002
Journal Vivarium
Volume 40
Issue 2
Pages 137-173
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kukkonen, Taneli
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's ratio- 
nale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments "through the impossible"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers 
offered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. 
We shall see that within the discussion, a  more systematic picture of 
Aristotle's intentions slowly emerges. [p. 141]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"734","_score":null,"_source":{"id":734,"authors_free":[{"id":1097,"entry_id":734,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":224,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","free_first_name":"Taneli","free_last_name":"Kukkonen","norm_person":{"id":224,"first_name":"Taneli","last_name":"Kukkonen","full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1064756859","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile","main_title":{"title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile"},"abstract":"When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's ratio- \r\nnale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments \"through the impossible\"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers \r\noffered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. \r\nWe shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of \r\nAristotle's intentions slowly emerges. [p. 141]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VugBKbHjOyRL2pO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":224,"full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":734,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"137-173"}},"sort":["Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile"]}

Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire, 2018
By: Menn, Stephen
Title Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire
Type Article
Language English
Date 2018
Journal Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume 29
Pages 13-43
Categories no categories
Author(s) Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to  reconstruct much  of Porphyry’s  greater  Categories commentary  (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to  a lesser  extent Andronicus,  on the Categories. In  some cases 
building on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander’s  and Porphyry’s responses.  I  reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how 
a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or  Stoic 
XeKid, and the  consequences he draws for the different aims  of the  Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the 
form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it 
is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses.  In  some  cases  Porphyry  constructs  his  views  by  triangulating  between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/f40u6koKhn1exfj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":["Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"]}

Aperçu de la réception de la doctrine stoïcienne du mélange total dans le néoplatonisme après Plotin, 2007
By: Cohen, Daniel
Title Aperçu de la réception de la doctrine stoïcienne du mélange total dans le néoplatonisme après Plotin
Type Article
Language French
Date 2007
Journal Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume 25
Issue 2
Pages 67-100
Categories no categories
Author(s) Cohen, Daniel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text provides an overview of the reception of Stoic doctrine on total mixture in Neoplatonism after Plotinus. It examines the fundamental data of the physics of mixture and its role in the development of Neoplatonic philosophy. The text distinguishes between three types of mixtures in Aristotelian and Stoic physics and highlights the Stoic doctrine of total mixture as a new starting point that influenced the development of Neoplatonic metaphysics. The Stoic theory of total mixture allowed the Stoics to explain how the divine agent (Logos) is present in the material universe. The text concludes by discussing how the Stoic doctrine of total mixture was transposed to the realm of immaterial and non-corporeal realities within Neoplatonism. [introdcution/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1273","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1273,"authors_free":[{"id":1863,"entry_id":1273,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":51,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cohen, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Cohen","norm_person":{"id":51,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Cohen","full_name":"Cohen, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1024876659","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","main_title":{"title":"Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"},"abstract":"This text provides an overview of the reception of Stoic doctrine on total mixture in Neoplatonism after Plotinus. It examines the fundamental data of the physics of mixture and its role in the development of Neoplatonic philosophy. The text distinguishes between three types of mixtures in Aristotelian and Stoic physics and highlights the Stoic doctrine of total mixture as a new starting point that influenced the development of Neoplatonic metaphysics. The Stoic theory of total mixture allowed the Stoics to explain how the divine agent (Logos) is present in the material universe. The text concludes by discussing how the Stoic doctrine of total mixture was transposed to the realm of immaterial and non-corporeal realities within Neoplatonism. [introdcution\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xthiD4rhIAwOYLZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":51,"full_name":"Cohen, Daniel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1273,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"25 ","issue":"2","pages":"67-100"}},"sort":["Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"]}

Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions – A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory, 2001
By: Boland, Vivian
Title Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions – A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory
Type Article
Language English
Date 2001
Journal New Blackfriars
Volume 82
Issue 968
Pages 467-478
Categories no categories
Author(s) Boland, Vivian
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since for him, following 
Aristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition. But this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do 
in this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of ' habitus' or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope and charity which
Christian tradition calls 'theological virtues'. It is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e. philosophical as distinct from theological. [Introduction, pp. 467 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1081","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1081,"authors_free":[{"id":1636,"entry_id":1081,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":9,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boland, Vivian","free_first_name":"Vivian","free_last_name":"Boland","norm_person":{"id":9,"first_name":"Vivian","last_name":"Boland","full_name":"Boland, Vivian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/94637645X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory"},"abstract":"A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since for him, following \r\nAristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition. But this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do \r\nin this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of ' habitus' or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope and charity which\r\nChristian tradition calls 'theological virtues'. It is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e. philosophical as distinct from theological. [Introduction, pp. 467 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YsbXUYxTy1D2KJ0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":9,"full_name":"Boland, Vivian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1081,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"New Blackfriars","volume":"82","issue":"968","pages":"467-478"}},"sort":["Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory"]}

Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Title Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation
Type Article
Language French
Date 2011
Journal The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume 5
Issue 1
Pages 85-158
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the συμφωνία in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization:  how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle’s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological  inversion  introduced  by  the  counterfeiter  produces  remarkable  effects  on  the  late  Platonic  doctrine  about  general  terms,  to  the  extent  that  a  commentator  such  as  Simplicius  works  to  reduce  the  dissonance  between   Archytas’ and Aristotle’s words. This paper has three aims:  to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided  by  the  doctrine  of  weight,  which  engenders  a  new  physical  theory  by  Simplicius. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1312","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1312,"authors_free":[{"id":1946,"entry_id":1312,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation","main_title":{"title":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation"},"abstract":"Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle\u2019s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works to reduce the dissonance between Archytas\u2019 and Aristotle\u2019s words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XYj9lPTpSk9x4NP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1312,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"85-158"}},"sort":["Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 15