{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1144,"authors_free":[{"id":1717,"entry_id":1144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)"},"abstract":"The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus\u2019 assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus\u2019 position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus\u2019assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the \u2019constitution thesis with Iamblichus\u2019theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c2. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1144,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"59"}},"sort":["Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1073","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1073,"authors_free":[{"id":1627,"entry_id":1073,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","free_first_name":"Alan C. ","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory ","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory "},"abstract":"n earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro-\r\nduced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take\r\npains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later\r\nwriters in antiquity through a process of veri\u00aacation. In this paper, I shall\r\napply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nof Aristotle\u2019s remarks in Meta \u0001. 8, which is the primary point of departure\r\nfor the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I \u00aarst sketch several\r\nlines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nshould not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena\r\nunknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then,\r\nafter showing that there is a fairly well de\u00aaned range of readings of Aris-\r\ntotle\u2019s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in\r\nthe 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle\u2019s report about\r\nthe Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius\u2019\r\ninterpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of\r\nearly Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lJ4EoQlGmsAbp75","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1073,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"155\u2013167"}},"sort":["Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory "]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1321,"authors_free":[{"id":1955,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2378,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"The digression labelled \u201cCorollarium de loco\u201d by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u2018place\u2019 (topos) as \u201cthe first unmoved boundary \r\nof the surrounding body\u201d (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being \u2018somewhere\u2019, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle\u2019s definition with a new definition of place as a \u201cgathering (or uniting) measure\u201d (metron sunag\u00f4gon), which is one of the four \u201cmeasures\u201d (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible \r\nentities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under\u00adstanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of \r\nNature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection \u201cCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina\u201d (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy \r\nof Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger\u00adman scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian \r\ncollection. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VYauzSK0KjIWDqk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"127","issue":"1","pages":"119-175"}},"sort":["Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"]}

{"_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":["Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25\u2013161.20"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1152","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1152,"authors_free":[{"id":1727,"entry_id":1152,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs"},"abstract":"In this study I examine the sole detailed evidence we have for Simplicius\u2019 view of sign-based, i.e. tekmeriodic proofs, thereby questing the widespread assumption that he espouses Phiioponus' account of these proofs. Specifically. I argue that (1) it is more plausible to understand the signs on which Simplicius bases his tekmeriodic proofs as refutable, (2) he grounds the epistemic worth of these proofs in the evidential strength of their premises rather than in their validity, (3) unlike Phiioponus, he conceives of the argu\u00adment that leads to the principles of natural philosophy, which tekmeriodic proofs are aimed to prove, as inductive, and (4) he evaluates these proofs against Plato\u2019s un-hypothetical science, hence denying natural philosophy the autonomy from metaphysics that Phiioponus\u2019 account of tekmeriodic proofs grants. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vbzFJm961Y8HIGw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1152,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"366-375"}},"sort":["Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs"]}