Author 102
Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed, 2005
By: Wilberding, James
Title Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed
Type Article
Language English
Date 2005
Journal The Classical Quarterly
Volume 55 (New Series)
Issue 2
Pages 447–454
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wilberding, James
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"431","_score":null,"_source":{"id":431,"authors_free":[{"id":582,"entry_id":431,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5oyjVkiNRcsn7CM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":431,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"55 (New Series)","issue":"2","pages":"447\u2013454"}},"sort":[2005]}

Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro, 2005
By: Todd, Robert B.
Title Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro
Type Article
Language English
Date 2005
Journal Bryn Mawr Classical Review
Volume 10
Issue 38
Pages 750
Categories no categories
Author(s) Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":462,"authors_free":[{"id":619,"entry_id":462,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro","main_title":{"title":"Review of Rescigno, A. 2004: Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De Caelo di Aristotele, Frammenti del Primo Libro"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0nnOlu2FfedILz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":462,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bryn Mawr Classical Review","volume":"10","issue":"38","pages":"750"}},"sort":[2005]}

Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy, 2005
By: Henry, Devin
Title Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy
Type Article
Language English
Date 2005
Journal Phronesis
Volume 50
Issue 1
Pages 1-42
Categories no categories
Author(s) Henry, Devin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Historically embryogenesis has been among the most philosophically intriguing phenomena. In this paper I focus on one aspect of biological development that was particularly perplexing to the ancients: self-organisation. For many ancients, the fact that an organism determines the important features of its own develop­ment required a special model for understanding how this was possible. This was especially true for Aristotle, Alexander, and Simplicius, who all looked to con­temporary technology to supply that model. However, they did not all agree on what kind of device should be used. In this paper I explore the way these ancients made use of technology as a model for the developing embryo. I argue that their different choices of device reveal fundamental differences in the way each thinker understood the nature of biological development itself. In the final section of the paper I challenge the traditional view (dating back to Alexander’s interpretation of Aristotle) that the use of automata in GA can simply be read off from their use in the de motu. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"512","_score":null,"_source":{"id":512,"authors_free":[{"id":711,"entry_id":512,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":1,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Henry, Devin","free_first_name":"Devin","free_last_name":"Henry","norm_person":{"id":1,"first_name":"Devin ","last_name":"Henry","full_name":"Henry, Devin ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071377922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"Historically embryogenesis has been among the most philosophically intriguing phenomena. In this paper I focus on one aspect of biological development that was particularly perplexing to the ancients: self-organisation. For many ancients, the fact that an organism determines the important features of its own develop\u00adment required a special model for understanding how this was possible. This was especially true for Aristotle, Alexander, and Simplicius, who all looked to con\u00adtemporary technology to supply that model. However, they did not all agree on what kind of device should be used. In this paper I explore the way these ancients made use of technology as a model for the developing embryo. I argue that their different choices of device reveal fundamental differences in the way each thinker understood the nature of biological development itself. In the final section of the paper I challenge the traditional view (dating back to Alexander\u2019s interpretation of Aristotle) that the use of automata in GA can simply be read off from their use in the de motu. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9xKw5hVszFw4oS0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":1,"full_name":"Henry, Devin ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":512,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"50","issue":"1","pages":"1-42"}},"sort":[2005]}

What is Platonism?, 2005
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.
Title What is Platonism?
Type Article
Language English
Date 2005
Journal Journal of the History of Philosophy
Volume 43
Issue 3
Pages 253-276
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
My main conclusion is that we should understand Platonism historically as consisting in fidelity to the principles of “top-downism.” So understanding it, we havea relatively sharp critical tool for deciding who was and who was not a Platonist despite their silence or protestations to the contrary. Unquestionably, the most important figure in this regard is Aristotle. I would not like to end this historical inquiry, however, without suggesting a philosophical moral. The moral is that there are at least some reasons for claiming that a truly anti-Platonic Aristotelianism is not philosophically in the cards, so to speak. Thus, if one rigorously and honestly seeks to remove the principles of Platonism from a putatively Aristotelian position, what would remain would be incoherent and probably indefensible. Thus, an Aristotelian ontology of the sensible world that excluded the ontological priority of the supersensible is probably unsustainable. And an Aristotelian psychology that did not recognize the priority and irreducibility of intellect to soul would be similarly beyond repair.89 What contemporary exponents of versions of Platonism or Aristotelianism should perhaps conclude from a study of the history is that, rather than standing in opposition to each other, merger, or at least synergy, ought to be the order of the day.[conclusion, p. 276]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1317","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1317,"authors_free":[{"id":1951,"entry_id":1317,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What is Platonism?","main_title":{"title":"What is Platonism?"},"abstract":"My main conclusion is that we should understand Platonism historically as consisting in fidelity to the principles of \u201ctop-downism.\u201d So understanding it, we havea relatively sharp critical tool for deciding who was and who was not a Platonist despite their silence or protestations to the contrary. Unquestionably, the most important figure in this regard is Aristotle. I would not like to end this historical inquiry, however, without suggesting a philosophical moral. The moral is that there\r\nare at least some reasons for claiming that a truly anti-Platonic Aristotelianism is not philosophically in the cards, so to speak. Thus, if one rigorously and honestly seeks to remove the principles of Platonism from a putatively Aristotelian position, what would remain would be incoherent and probably indefensible. Thus, an Aristotelian ontology of the sensible world that excluded the ontological priority of the supersensible is probably unsustainable. And an Aristotelian psychology that did not recognize the priority and irreducibility of intellect to soul would be\r\nsimilarly beyond repair.89 What contemporary exponents of versions of Platonism or Aristotelianism should perhaps conclude from a study of the history is that, rather than standing in opposition to each other, merger, or at least synergy, ought to be the order of the day.[conclusion, p. 276]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goxyyq1Id3kdZDT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1317,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Philosophy","volume":"43","issue":"3","pages":"253-276"}},"sort":[2005]}

Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus, 2005
By: Perkams, Matthias
Title Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus
Type Article
Language English
Date 2005
Journal Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume 58
Issue 4
Pages 510-530
Categories no categories
Author(s) Perkams, Matthias
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- mentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1086","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1086,"authors_free":[{"id":1642,"entry_id":1086,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus"},"abstract":"It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- \r\nmentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V0QkTnShQo0nyvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1086,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"58","issue":"4","pages":"510-530"}},"sort":[2005]}

L'écriture et les Présocratiques: Analyse de l'interprétation de Eric Havelock, 2005
By: Palù, Chiara
Title L'écriture et les Présocratiques: Analyse de l'interprétation de Eric Havelock
Type Article
Language French
Date 2005
Journal Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume 23
Issue 2
Pages 75-92
Categories no categories
Author(s) Palù, Chiara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1091","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1091,"authors_free":[{"id":1649,"entry_id":1091,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":281,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Pal\u00f9, Chiara","free_first_name":"Chiara","free_last_name":"Pal\u00f9","norm_person":{"id":281,"first_name":"Chiara","last_name":"Pal\u00f9","full_name":"Pal\u00f9, Chiara","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'\u00e9criture et les Pr\u00e9socratiques: Analyse de l'interpr\u00e9tation de Eric Havelock","main_title":{"title":"L'\u00e9criture et les Pr\u00e9socratiques: Analyse de l'interpr\u00e9tation de Eric Havelock"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b71ZOb3TOzDoasL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":281,"full_name":"Pal\u00f9, Chiara","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1091,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"23","issue":"2","pages":"75-92"}},"sort":[2005]}

The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research, 2005
By: Baltussen, Han
Title The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research
Type Article
Language English
Date 2005
Journal Studia Humaniora Tartuensia
Volume 6
Issue 6
Pages 1-26
Categories no categories
Author(s) Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1201","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1201,"authors_free":[{"id":1774,"entry_id":1201,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research","main_title":{"title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research"},"abstract":"In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th\u20133rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UkxbgXu0jAuujr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1201,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia Humaniora Tartuensia","volume":"6","issue":"6","pages":"1-26"}},"sort":[2005]}

Échelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les stoïciens, 2005
By: Bénatoui͏̈l, Thomas
Title Échelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les stoïciens
Type Article
Language French
Date 2005
Journal Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale
Volume 4
Pages 537-556
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bénatoui͏̈l, Thomas
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The stoic scala naturae was based, among other things, on a division of natural movements, which this paper studies in order to understand the way in which stoicism approached Nature and its empirical diversity. First, I argue against David Hahm's interpretation that movement «through» (dia) oneself is not on a par with the other natural movements: far from being specific to stones or elements, it designates the movement which is specifically produced by the nature of a thing or being. The aristotelian and stoic analysis of self-movement are then shown to share their basic principles but to lead to diverging approaches of Nature: whereas Aristotle looks for the origin and causes of natural movements, the Stoics offer a taxonomy of visible movements. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"832","_score":null,"_source":{"id":832,"authors_free":[{"id":1236,"entry_id":832,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":414,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l","norm_person":{"id":414,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l","full_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143798405","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00c9chelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les sto\u00efciens","main_title":{"title":"\u00c9chelle de la nature et division des mouvements chez Aristote et les sto\u00efciens"},"abstract":"The stoic scala naturae was based, among other things, on a division of natural movements, which this paper studies in order to understand the way in which stoicism approached Nature and its empirical diversity. First, I argue against David Hahm's interpretation that movement \u00abthrough\u00bb (dia) oneself is not on a par with the other natural movements: far from being specific to stones or elements, it designates the movement which is specifically produced by the nature of a thing or being. The aristotelian and stoic analysis of self-movement are then shown to share their basic principles but to lead to diverging approaches of Nature: whereas Aristotle looks for the origin and causes of natural movements, the Stoics offer a taxonomy of visible movements. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BMmIVLRb8dZbOjW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":414,"full_name":"B\u00e9natoui\u034f\u0308l, Thomas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":832,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de M\u00e9taphysique et de Morale","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"537-556"}},"sort":[2005]}

Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements, 2005
By: Knox, Dilwyn
Title Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements
Type Article
Language English
Date 2005
Journal Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
Volume 68
Pages 157-211
Categories no categories
Author(s) Knox, Dilwyn
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
[Conclusion, pp. 210 f.]: The greatest debt [...] that Copernicus the cosmologist owed was not to Renaissance Platonism or a revamped Aristotelianism. It was rather to the variety of ancient learning promoted by Renaissance humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. To them he owed., that is, not just the wherewithal and encouragement to consult a much wider library of classical authors than his scholastic predecessors were wont to do but also the intellectual flexibility to regard his sources as no more than that - sources for ideas rather than authorities. In this Copernicus was typical of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century 'scientific' thinkers, Galileo included.282 But Renaissance humanism left its mark in another important respect. Copernicus set himself the task of learning Greek, and this provided him, if the evidence above is to be trusted, with one of his most important cosmological doctrines.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"736","_score":null,"_source":{"id":736,"authors_free":[{"id":1099,"entry_id":736,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":217,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","free_first_name":"Dilwyn","free_last_name":"Knox","norm_person":{"id":217,"first_name":"Dilwyn","last_name":"Knox","full_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1048420108","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements","main_title":{"title":"Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, pp. 210 f.]: The greatest debt [...] that Copernicus the cosmologist owed was not to Renaissance Platonism or a \r\nrevamped Aristotelianism. It was rather to the variety of ancient learning \r\npromoted by Renaissance humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. \r\nTo them he owed., that is, not just the wherewithal and encouragement to consult \r\na much wider library of classical authors than his scholastic predecessors were \r\nwont to do but also the intellectual flexibility to regard his sources as no more \r\nthan that - sources for ideas rather than authorities. In this Copernicus was \r\ntypical of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century 'scientific' thinkers, Galileo \r\nincluded.282 But Renaissance humanism left its mark in another important \r\nrespect. Copernicus set himself the task of learning Greek, and this provided \r\nhim, if the evidence above is to be trusted, with one of his most important \r\ncosmological doctrines.","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/m7VrHz0WRSJ9NtK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":217,"full_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":736,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes","volume":"68","issue":"","pages":"157-211"}},"sort":[2005]}

Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos, 2005
By: Scholten, Clemens
Title Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos
Type Article
Language German
Date 2005
Journal Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume 148
Issue 2
Pages 202-219
Categories no categories
Author(s) Scholten, Clemens
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In der Schrift de aeternitate mundi (aetm.) des Johannes Philoponos aus der Zeit bald nach 529 n. Chr. gibt es über eine Reihe von bereits näher beleuchteten Quellen und doxographischen Nachrichten hinaus eine größere Anzahl von bisher unbeachteten doxographischen Materialien, Paraphrasen und/oder Zitaten aus verlorenen Schriften antiker Autoren. Unter quellenkritischen und doxographischen Gesichtspunkten im engeren Sinn ist aetm. noch nicht eigens untersucht worden. Das wird sicherlich damit zu tun haben, daß die Erforschung der doxographischen Überlieferung vor gut hundert Jahren ihren Schwerpunkt auf die vorplatonische Tra- dition setzte und unter diesem Gesichtspunkt aetm. offenbar ver- nachlässigen zu können glaubte, zumal H.Rabe als Herausgeber von aetm. in seinen Fußnoten die Textnachweise aus den großen Dichtern und Philosophen wie Homer, Piaton, Aristoteles, Plotin usw., soweit möglich, zuverlässig geführt hat1. Möglicherweise ist daran auch die Einschätzung des letzten Rezensenten der Rabe- schen Edition aus dem Jahre 1 90 1 nicht unbeteiligt, der aetm. für un- ergiebig im Hinblick auf verlorene Quellen hielt und meinte, aetm. habe lediglich bekanntes Material zu bieten. [p. 202]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1034","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1034,"authors_free":[{"id":1565,"entry_id":1034,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":286,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Scholten, Clemens","free_first_name":"Clemens","free_last_name":"Scholten","norm_person":{"id":286,"first_name":"Clemens","last_name":"Scholten","full_name":"Scholten, Clemens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115572538","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos","main_title":{"title":"Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De Aeternitate Mundi des Johannes Philoponos"},"abstract":"In der Schrift de aeternitate mundi (aetm.) des Johannes \r\nPhiloponos aus der Zeit bald nach 529 n. Chr. gibt es \u00fcber eine Reihe \r\nvon bereits n\u00e4her beleuchteten Quellen und doxographischen Nachrichten hinaus eine gr\u00f6\u00dfere Anzahl von bisher unbeachteten \r\ndoxographischen Materialien, Paraphrasen und\/oder Zitaten aus \r\nverlorenen Schriften antiker Autoren. Unter quellenkritischen und \r\ndoxographischen Gesichtspunkten im engeren Sinn ist aetm. noch \r\nnicht eigens untersucht worden. Das wird sicherlich damit zu tun \r\nhaben, da\u00df die Erforschung der doxographischen \u00dcberlieferung vor \r\ngut hundert Jahren ihren Schwerpunkt auf die vorplatonische Tra- \r\ndition setzte und unter diesem Gesichtspunkt aetm. offenbar ver- \r\nnachl\u00e4ssigen zu k\u00f6nnen glaubte, zumal H.Rabe als Herausgeber von aetm. in seinen Fu\u00dfnoten die Textnachweise aus den gro\u00dfen Dichtern und Philosophen wie Homer, Piaton, Aristoteles, Plotin \r\nusw., soweit m\u00f6glich, zuverl\u00e4ssig gef\u00fchrt hat1. M\u00f6glicherweise ist \r\ndaran auch die Einsch\u00e4tzung des letzten Rezensenten der Rabe- \r\nschen Edition aus dem Jahre 1 90 1 nicht unbeteiligt, der aetm. f\u00fcr un- \r\nergiebig im Hinblick auf verlorene Quellen hielt und meinte, aetm. \r\nhabe lediglich bekanntes Material zu bieten. [p. 202]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZZPKEzJDuUHosJB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":286,"full_name":"Scholten, Clemens","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1034,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"148","issue":"2","pages":"202-219"}},"sort":[2005]}

  • PAGE 11 OF 15
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":["Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances"]}

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":["Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3"]}

Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change, 2009
By: Harari, Orna
Title Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change
Type Article
Language English
Date 2009
Journal Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Volume 37
Pages 245-274
Categories no categories
Author(s) Harari, Orna
Editor(s)
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. [Introduction, pp. 245 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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}}],"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\u1f71) or a character (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f75\u03c1) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f79\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. [Introduction, pp. 245 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EIKXB0T5OT2ezjh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":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 Relation between Quality and Qualified, 2016
By: Hauer, Mareike
Title Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified
Type Article
Language English
Date 2016
Journal Méthexis
Volume 28
Pages 111-140
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hauer, Mareike
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle’s  Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same com­mentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius'  notion of natural priority and to  investigate the  extent to which the as­sumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"387","_score":null,"_source":{"id":387,"authors_free":[{"id":506,"entry_id":387,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified"},"abstract":"Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same com\u00admentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the as\u00adsumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MaVlDWOYkfo0ZCx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":387,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"28","issue":"","pages":"111-140"}},"sort":["Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified"]}

Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study, 2002
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study
Type Article
Language English
Date 2002
Journal Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume 55
Issue 2
Pages 159–199
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic.  [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"692","_score":null,"_source":{"id":692,"authors_free":[{"id":1030,"entry_id":692,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study"},"abstract":"This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kB5BDlY4hvsJToF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":692,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"55","issue":"2","pages":"159\u2013199"}},"sort":["Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study"]}

Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient, 2004
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient
Type Article
Language English
Date 2004
Journal Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume 147
Issue 3/4
Pages 408-420
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In the first place, the survey  of  the  commentaries  on  the  Categories with  which  Simplicius  provides  us,  as  well  as  the  examination  undertaken  by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus’ commentaries on Plato’s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly,  an  attentive  comparison  between  those  Neoplatonic  commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a  genuine  doctrinal  continuity  existed  from  Porphyry  to  Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus’ attitude,  which  he  manifests  in  the  introduction  to  his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"638","_score":null,"_source":{"id":638,"authors_free":[{"id":904,"entry_id":638,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient"},"abstract":"In the first place, the survey of the commentaries on the Categories with which Simplicius provides us, as well as the examination undertaken by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus\u2019 commentaries on Plato\u2019s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly, an attentive comparison between those Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a genuine doctrinal continuity existed from Porphyry to Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus\u2019 attitude, which he manifests in the introduction to his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420]","btype":3,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N3412v5yjSPU8r8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":638,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"147","issue":"3\/4","pages":"408-420"}},"sort":["Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient"]}

Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority, 2009
By: Barney, Rachel
Title Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority
Type Article
Language English
Date 2009
Journal Antiquorum Philosophia
Volume 3
Pages 101-119
Categories no categories
Author(s) Barney, Rachel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
So to understand Neoplatonic harmonization we must look beyond their reconcilia­
tion of Plato and Aristotle, however crazy or compelling we may happen to find it. Two 
further questions also need to be addressed: first, how and why different Neoplatonists 
constructed  their more  comprehensive  projects  o f harmonization  as  they did,  each 
with its distinctive scope and strategies; and second, what if anything we can say about 
the salient features of harmonization as such,  as an interpretive and philosophical prac­
tice with rules and rewards of its own. In this paper, I will try to address these questions, 
albeit in a brief and preliminary way, with regard to die late commentator Simplicius.4 
First, I will outline the norms and methods which govern Simplicius' argument for the essential harmony o f his tradition. Second, I will sketch, in admittedly rather abstract 
terms, some o f the intellectual attractions o f harmonizing projects in philosophy, and 
w ill attempt to locate Simplicius within this broad genre. [pp. 102 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"825","_score":null,"_source":{"id":825,"authors_free":[{"id":1226,"entry_id":825,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":418,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barney, Rachel","free_first_name":"Rachel","free_last_name":"Barney","norm_person":{"id":418,"first_name":"Rachel","last_name":"Barney","full_name":"Barney, Rachel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/17355959X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority"},"abstract":"So to understand Neoplatonic harmonization we must look beyond their reconcilia\u00ad\r\ntion of Plato and Aristotle, however crazy or compelling we may happen to find it. Two \r\nfurther questions also need to be addressed: first, how and why different Neoplatonists \r\nconstructed their more comprehensive projects o f harmonization as they did, each \r\nwith its distinctive scope and strategies; and second, what if anything we can say about \r\nthe salient features of harmonization as such, as an interpretive and philosophical prac\u00ad\r\ntice with rules and rewards of its own. In this paper, I will try to address these questions, \r\nalbeit in a brief and preliminary way, with regard to die late commentator Simplicius.4 \r\nFirst, I will outline the norms and methods which govern Simplicius' argument for the essential harmony o f his tradition. Second, I will sketch, in admittedly rather abstract \r\nterms, some o f the intellectual attractions o f harmonizing projects in philosophy, and \r\nw ill attempt to locate Simplicius within this broad genre. [pp. 102 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A8TFmCyUiKsZjZ8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":418,"full_name":"Barney, Rachel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":825,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophia","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"101-119"}},"sort":["Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority"]}

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1, 2003
By: Bowen, Alan C., Simplicius
Title Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1
Type Article
Language English
Date 2003
Journal SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences
Volume 4
Pages 23-58
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius’ commentary on book 2 chapter 12 of Aristotle’s treatise, De caelo. Simplicius’ remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Meta. Λ 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius’ comments on De caelo 2.12
do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Meta. Λ 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. That scholars today persist in reading Meta. Λ 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Meta. Λ 8  and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern the planetary motions, that they not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and date to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius’ account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless. Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Meta. Λ 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes.
Given the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–11. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius’ account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius’ commentary on 2.10–11 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12.
The annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation. 
[introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1479,"authors_free":[{"id":2560,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2601,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1"},"abstract":"If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius\u2019 commentary on book 2 chapter 12 of Aristotle\u2019s treatise, De caelo. Simplicius\u2019 remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Meta. \u039b 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius\u2019 comments on De caelo 2.12\r\ndo not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Meta. \u039b 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. That scholars today persist in reading Meta. \u039b 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Meta. \u039b 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern the planetary motions, that they not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and date to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius\u2019 account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless. Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Meta. \u039b 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes.\r\nGiven the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.10\u201311. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius\u2019 account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius\u2019 commentary on 2.10\u201311 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12.\r\nThe annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation. \r\n[introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Cxa6aZwE2WNkdBB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"23-58"}},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1"]}

Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2, 2008
By: Bowen, Alan C., Simplicius
Title Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2
Type Article
Language English
Date 2008
Journal SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences
Volume 9
Pages 25-131
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius’ com-
mentary on Aristotle’s De caelo that first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003) 23–58. Its
aim, as before, is to supply the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius’
text that will facilitate addressing the critical questions of the nature, construction, and
historical value of Simplicius’ commentary, especially as it bears on the history of earlier
Greek astronomical theorizing. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1480,"authors_free":[{"id":2561,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2600,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2"},"abstract":"This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius\u2019 com-\r\nmentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo that first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003) 23\u201358. Its\r\naim, as before, is to supply the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius\u2019\r\ntext that will facilitate addressing the critical questions of the nature, construction, and\r\nhistorical value of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, especially as it bears on the history of earlier\r\nGreek astronomical theorizing. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2UHM1mtpgYGOwNe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"25-131"}},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2"]}

Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta, 2014
By: Łapiński, Krzysztof
Title Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta
Type Article
Language Polish
Date 2014
Journal Przegląd Filozoficzno-Literacki
Volume 40
Issue 3-4
Pages 35-43
Categories no categories
Author(s) Łapiński, Krzysztof
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius, the Neoplatonic philosopher, and commentator from late antiquity, devoted one of his commentaries to Epictetus’ Enchiridion. In the article, the author posed the question about the place of the text by the Stoic writer within the whole Neoplatonic education system. In addition, he asked to what extent the act of commenting on Epictetus’ work could be conceived by Simplicius as a kind of spiritual exercise. In the second part of the article, the hypothesis by M. Tardieu and I. Hadot is presented, suggesting that the city of Harran could be regarded as the possible place of exile where the group of philosophers settled after the Platonic Academy had been closed. [Author's abstract]

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

  • PAGE 11 OF 15