Author 102
El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno", 2014
By: Gardella, Mariana
Title El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno"
Type Article
Language Spanish
Date 2014
Journal Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad del Norte
Volume 23
Pages 157-181
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gardella, Mariana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno’s objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno’s philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Re­futations and mainly Metaphysics Hi. 4. 1001b7-I3 (DK 29 A 21). I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno’s philosophy (In Ph. 99.7-18, DK 29 A 21; 138. 3-6, DK 29 A 22). [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"621","_score":null,"_source":{"id":621,"authors_free":[{"id":877,"entry_id":621,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":124,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gardella, Mariana","free_first_name":"Mariana","free_last_name":"Gardella","norm_person":{"id":124,"first_name":"Mariana","last_name":"Gardella","full_name":"Gardella, Mariana","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"El testimonio de Arist\u00f3teles sobre Zen\u00f2n de Elea como un detractor de \"lo uno\"","main_title":{"title":"El testimonio de Arist\u00f3teles sobre Zen\u00f2n de Elea como un detractor de \"lo uno\""},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno\u2019s objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno\u2019s philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Re\u00adfutations and mainly Metaphysics Hi. 4. 1001b7-I3 (DK 29 A 21). I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno\u2019s philosophy (In Ph. 99.7-18, DK 29 A 21; 138. 3-6, DK 29 A 22). [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7Ft81rfWlW1HB3z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":124,"full_name":"Gardella, Mariana","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":621,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Eidos: Revista de Filosof\u00eda de la Universidad del Norte","volume":"23","issue":"","pages":"157-181"}},"sort":[2014]}

The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism, 2014
By: Gerson, Lloyd P.
Title The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism
Type Article
Language English
Date 2014
Journal Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume 2
Issue 4
Pages 7-23
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gerson, Lloyd P.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1510,"authors_free":[{"id":2623,"entry_id":1510,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/flJbYNytd91hTDh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1510,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"2","issue":"4","pages":"7-23"}},"sort":[2014]}

‘Simplicius’ (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller), 2014
By: Fleet, Barrie
Title ‘Simplicius’ (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)
Type Article
Language English
Date 2014
Journal The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume 8
Issue 1
Pages 113-114
Categories no categories
Author(s) Fleet, Barrie
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller, with Introduction and Notes; Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (general editor: Richard Sorabji), Bristol Classical Press/ Bloomsbury Academic (London) 2012; pp. 168; ISBN 9780715638576; hbk £63 (online).

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"594","_score":null,"_source":{"id":594,"authors_free":[{"id":845,"entry_id":594,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u2018Simplicius\u2019 (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)","main_title":{"title":"\u2018Simplicius\u2019 (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)"},"abstract":"Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael \r\nShare and Ian Mueller, with Introduction and Notes; Ancient Commentators on \r\nAristotle (general editor: Richard Sorabji), Bristol Classical Press\/ Bloomsbury \r\nAcademic (London) 2012; pp. 168; ISBN 9780715638576; hbk \u00a363 (online).","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qMmqsT03cq8uFpD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":594,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"8","issue":"1","pages":"113-114"}},"sort":[2014]}

Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, 2014
By: Sellars, J. T.
Title Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator
Type Article
Language English
Date 2014
Journal Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sellars, J. T.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Review of Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, Duckworth, 2008, 292pp., $90.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780715635001.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"904","_score":null,"_source":{"id":904,"authors_free":[{"id":1335,"entry_id":904,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"Review of Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, Duckworth, 2008,\r\n292pp., $90.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780715635001.","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HKqxzPRJOen10Sj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":904,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2014]}

The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius, 2014
By: Gabor, Gary
Title The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius
Type Article
Language English
Date 2014
Journal Quaestiones Disputatae
Volume 4
Issue 2
Pages 99-112
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gabor, Gary
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Susanne Bobzien recently described “the volumes of the Greek commen-tators on Aristotle’s logical works” as “monumental” but “rarely creative.”2 While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien’s assessment obscures the occa- sional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one example here—the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle’s ten categories. [Introduction, p. 99]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"918","_score":null,"_source":{"id":918,"authors_free":[{"id":1357,"entry_id":918,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius"},"abstract":"Susanne Bobzien recently described \u201cthe volumes of the Greek commen-tators on Aristotle\u2019s logical works\u201d as \u201cmonumental\u201d but \u201crarely creative.\u201d2 While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien\u2019s assessment obscures the occa-\r\nsional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one example here\u2014the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers \r\ngave for Aristotle\u2019s ten categories. [Introduction, p. 99]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bClvt0NZom2Tgsr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":918,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"4","issue":"2","pages":"99-112"}},"sort":[2014]}

Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.), 2014
By: Van Dusen, David
Title Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.)
Type Article
Language English
Date 2014
Journal The Classical Review
Volume 64
Issue 2
Pages 436-437
Categories no categories
Author(s) Van Dusen, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text is a review of Carlos Steel‘s commentary on Simplicius‘ On Aristotle's De Anima III, 6-13. The commentary was initially attributed to Averroes, but was later believed to be written by Priscian of Lydia. The translator of the text, Carlos Steel, argues that it should be attributed to Priscian, and provides corrections to the Greek text. Despite the disputed authorship, the commentary is considered to be an original and personal engagement with Aristotle's text, and provides insight into Neoplatonic conceptions of time and the relationship between the soul and the body. The commentary also includes an illuminating discussion of sexuality in late antiquity. The article concludes that Pseudo-Simplicius' commentary remains challenging and important for contemporary work on Aristotle and Neoplatonic philosophy. [whole text]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1294","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1294,"authors_free":[{"id":1884,"entry_id":1294,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":74,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Dusen, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Van Dusen","norm_person":{"id":74,"first_name":"David ","last_name":"Van Dusen","full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066385637","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)","main_title":{"title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)"},"abstract":"This text is a review of Carlos Steel\u2018s commentary on Simplicius\u2018 On Aristotle's De Anima III, 6-13. The commentary was initially attributed to Averroes, but was later believed to be written by Priscian of Lydia. The translator of the text, Carlos Steel, argues that it should be attributed to Priscian, and provides corrections to the Greek text. Despite the disputed authorship, the commentary is considered to be an original and personal engagement with Aristotle's text, and provides insight into Neoplatonic conceptions of time and the relationship between the soul and the body. The commentary also includes an illuminating discussion of sexuality in late antiquity. The article concludes that Pseudo-Simplicius' commentary remains challenging and important for contemporary work on Aristotle and Neoplatonic philosophy. [whole text]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RCrKBsPBZIj0Kan","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":74,"full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1294,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"64","issue":"2","pages":"436-437"}},"sort":[2014]}

Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco, 2014
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco
Type Article
Language French
Date 2014
Journal Revue des Études Grecques
Volume 127
Issue 1
Pages 119-175
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The digression labelled “Corollarium de loco” by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle’s definition of ‘place’ (topos) as “the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body” (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being ‘somewhere’, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s definition with a new definition of place as a “gathering (or uniting) measure” (metron sunagôgon), which is one of the four “measures” (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible entities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under­standing of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of Nature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina” (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger­man scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian collection. [Author's abstract]

{"_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":[2014]}

The text of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts, 2014
By: Tarán, Leonardo
Title The text of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts
Type Article
Language English
Date 2014
Journal Revue d’histoire des textes
Volume 9
Pages 351-358
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This paper tries to establish that supralinear omicron is not, as most elementary introductions to Greek paleography have it, a simple abbreviation for the ending omicron-sigma. Rather, it was originally a symbol for suspension that later medieval scribes used also for other subordinated purposes which are impossible to classify. Some examples will be given in what follows. For a long time this interpretation had seemed so obvious to me that during a 1985 colloquium on Simplicius in Paris, it surprised me that some members of the audience objected that supralinear omicron is simply an abbreviation for omicron-sigma. As this occurred during my discussion of a passage of Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, and as several of my examples come from that work, it is convenient to give a list of the manuscripts used by Diels and also of additional prim ary witnesses either rejected by, or not known to him. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1456","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1456,"authors_free":[{"id":2476,"entry_id":1456,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The text of Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts","main_title":{"title":"The text of Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts"},"abstract":"This paper tries to establish that supralinear omicron is not, as most elementary introductions to Greek paleography have it, a simple abbreviation for the ending omicron-sigma. Rather, it was originally a symbol for suspension that later medieval scribes used also for other subordinated purposes which are impossible to classify. Some examples will be given in what follows. For a long time this interpretation had seemed so obvious to me that during a 1985 colloquium on Simplicius in Paris, it surprised me that some members of the audience objected that supralinear omicron is simply an abbreviation for omicron-sigma. As this occurred during my discussion of a passage of Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, and as several of my examples come from that work, it is convenient to give a list of the manuscripts used by Diels and also of additional prim ary witnesses either rejected by, or not known to him. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZJr3WclOTT5e1jS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1456,"pubplace":"","publisher":"","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1456,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes ","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"351-358 "}},"sort":[2014]}

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":[2014]}

Simplikios: Wstęp do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wybór), 2014
By: Łapiński, Krzysztof
Title Simplikios: Wstęp do Komentarza do Encheiridionu Epikteta (wybór)
Type Article
Language Polish
Date 2014
Journal Przegląd Filozoficzno-Literacki
Volume 40
Issue 3-4
Pages 45-49
Categories no categories
Author(s) Łapiński, Krzysztof
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The translation includes an introduction to the Simplicius’ commentary on Epictetus’ Enchiridion. The author of the commentary explains to whom is the work of Epictetus addressed, what is the scope o f the Enchiridion, the meaning of the title and the literary genre to which it belongs. The supposed audience is the reader who wants to live in accordance with reason on the level of ethical and political virtues. Such a reader ought to internalize Epictetus’ teaching and appeal to it in the challenging moments of life. The Stoic content has been enriched with the Platonic teaching drawn from Alcibiades I about relationship between the soul and the body. The first Polish translation of Simplicius’ text has been based on the Ilsetraut Hadot’s edition. [author's abstract]

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

  • PAGE 4 OF 15
El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno", 2014
By: Gardella, Mariana
Title El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenòn de Elea como un detractor de "lo uno"
Type Article
Language Spanish
Date 2014
Journal Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad del Norte
Volume 23
Pages 157-181
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gardella, Mariana
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno’s objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno’s philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Re­futations and mainly Metaphysics Hi. 4. 1001b7-I3 (DK 29 A 21). I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno’s philosophy (In Ph. 99.7-18, DK 29 A 21; 138. 3-6, DK 29 A 22). [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"621","_score":null,"_source":{"id":621,"authors_free":[{"id":877,"entry_id":621,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":124,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gardella, Mariana","free_first_name":"Mariana","free_last_name":"Gardella","norm_person":{"id":124,"first_name":"Mariana","last_name":"Gardella","full_name":"Gardella, Mariana","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"El testimonio de Arist\u00f3teles sobre Zen\u00f2n de Elea como un detractor de \"lo uno\"","main_title":{"title":"El testimonio de Arist\u00f3teles sobre Zen\u00f2n de Elea como un detractor de \"lo uno\""},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno\u2019s objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno\u2019s philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Re\u00adfutations and mainly Metaphysics Hi. 4. 1001b7-I3 (DK 29 A 21). I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno\u2019s philosophy (In Ph. 99.7-18, DK 29 A 21; 138. 3-6, DK 29 A 22). [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7Ft81rfWlW1HB3z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":124,"full_name":"Gardella, Mariana","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":621,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Eidos: Revista de Filosof\u00eda de la Universidad del Norte","volume":"23","issue":"","pages":"157-181"}},"sort":["El testimonio de Arist\u00f3teles sobre Zen\u00f2n de Elea como un detractor de \"lo uno\""]}

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":["Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy"]}

Empedokleův sfairos v pohledech antických interpretů, 2008
By: Hladký, Vojtech
Title Empedokleův sfairos v pohledech antických interpretů
Type Article
Language Czech
Date 2008
Journal Listy filologické / Folia philologica
Volume 131
Issue 3/4
Pages 379-439
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hladký, Vojtech
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"778","_score":null,"_source":{"id":778,"authors_free":[{"id":1142,"entry_id":778,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":180,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojtech ","free_first_name":"Vojtech","free_last_name":"Hladk\u00fd","norm_person":{"id":180,"first_name":"Vojt\u011bch","last_name":"Hladk\u00fd","full_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojt\u011bch","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedokle\u016fv sfairos v pohledech antick\u00fdch interpret\u016f","main_title":{"title":"Empedokle\u016fv sfairos v pohledech antick\u00fdch interpret\u016f"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"Czech","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Caps1tYazG8VPNA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":180,"full_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojt\u011bch","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":778,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Listy filologick\u00e9 \/ Folia philologica","volume":"131","issue":"3\/4","pages":"379-439"}},"sort":["Empedokle\u016fv sfairos v pohledech antick\u00fdch interpret\u016f"]}

Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories", 2008
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories"
Type Article
Language English
Date 2008
Journal Laval théologique et philosophique
Volume 64
Issue 3
Pages 583-595
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle’s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label “anti-Aristotelian” or “polemical”, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":473,"authors_free":[{"id":638,"entry_id":473,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle\u2019s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label \u201canti-Aristotelian\u201d or \u201cpolemical\u201d, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iC06bZZXGF8tDws","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":473,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Laval th\u00e9ologique et philosophique","volume":"64","issue":"3","pages":"583-595"}},"sort":["Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\""]}

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":["Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"]}

Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic, 2007
By: Deitz, Luc
Title Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic
Type Article
Language English
Date 2007
Journal Vivarum
Volume 45
Issue 1
Pages 113-124
Categories no categories
Author(s) Deitz, Luc
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Francesco Patrizi da Chersos Discussiones peripateticae (1581) are one of the most com- prehensive analyses of the whole of Aristotelian philosophy to be published before Werner Jaeger s Aristoteles . The main thrust of the argument in the Discussiones is that whatever Aristotle had said that was true was not new, and that whatever he had said that was new was not true. The article shows how Patrizi proves this with respect to the Organon , and deals with the implications for the history of ancient philosophy in general implied by his stance. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1299","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1299,"authors_free":[{"id":1892,"entry_id":1299,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":88,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Deitz, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Deitz","norm_person":{"id":88,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Deitz","full_name":"Deitz, Luc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113154011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic","main_title":{"title":"Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic"},"abstract":"Francesco Patrizi da Chersos Discussiones peripateticae (1581) are one of the most com- prehensive analyses of the whole of Aristotelian philosophy to be published before Werner Jaeger s Aristoteles . The main thrust of the argument in the Discussiones is that whatever Aristotle had said that was true was not new, and that whatever he had said that was new was not true. The article shows how Patrizi proves this with respect to the Organon , and deals with the implications for the history of ancient philosophy in general implied by his stance. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DzEPBU5tsCY5gSu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":88,"full_name":"Deitz, Luc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1299,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarum","volume":"45","issue":"1","pages":"113-124"}},"sort":["Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Criticism of Aristotle's Logic"]}

From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary, 2007
By: Baltussen, Han
Title From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary
Type Article
Language English
Date 2007
Journal Poetics Today
Volume 28
Issue 2
Pages 247–281
Categories no categories
Author(s) Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Commentary  was  an  important  vehicle  for  philosophical  debate  in late  antiquity.  Its  antecedents  lie in  the rise  of rational  argumentation,  polemical rivalry, literacy,  and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest alle­gorizing readings  of Homer to  the  full-blown “running commentary” in the  Pla­tonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather,  springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration,  and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"968","_score":null,"_source":{"id":968,"authors_free":[{"id":1455,"entry_id":968,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary","main_title":{"title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary"},"abstract":"Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest alle\u00adgorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown \u201crunning commentary\u201d in the Pla\u00adtonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively.","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YAAcTSBkqDm5xCA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":968,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Poetics Today","volume":"28","issue":"2","pages":"247\u2013281"}},"sort":["From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary"]}

Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC, 2008
By: Sharples, Robert W.
Title Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC
Type Article
Language English
Date 2008
Journal Acta Antiqua
Volume 48
Issue 1-2
Pages 273-287
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
A rc-cxaminalion of the question why, in the revival of interest, in the first century BC  in Aristotle’s esoteric works, as opposed to his doctrines, the work Categories played so large a part. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest  just because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, inore than Aristotle's other works with the possible exception of the Metaphysics, it revealed aspects of Aristotle’s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1023","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1023,"authors_free":[{"id":1542,"entry_id":1023,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC","main_title":{"title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC"},"abstract":"A rc-cxaminalion of the question why, in the revival of interest, in the first century BC in Aristotle\u2019s esoteric works, as opposed to his doctrines, the work Categories played so large a part. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest just because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, inore than Aristotle's other works with the possible exception of the Metaphysics, it revealed aspects of Aristotle\u2019s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period.","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4wH4nwIaSSiZXIi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1023,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Acta Antiqua","volume":"48","issue":"1-2","pages":"273-287"}},"sort":["Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC"]}

I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio, 2010
By: Saudelli, Lucia
Title I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 2010
Journal Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica
Volume 96
Issue 3
Pages 127-137
Categories no categories
Author(s) Saudelli, Lucia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"855","_score":null,"_source":{"id":855,"authors_free":[{"id":1259,"entry_id":855,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":311,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","free_first_name":"Lucia","free_last_name":"Saudelli","norm_person":{"id":311,"first_name":"Lucia","last_name":"Saudelli","full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047619067","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio"},"abstract":"This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fGML586kM8C7Ufy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":311,"full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":855,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica","volume":"96","issue":"3","pages":"127-137"}},"sort":["I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio"]}

Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averroè e Pietro d'Alvernia, 2006
By: Musatti, Cesare Alberto
Title Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averroè e Pietro d'Alvernia
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 2006
Journal Quaestio
Volume 6
Pages 524–549
Categories no categories
Author(s) Musatti, Cesare Alberto
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"617","_score":null,"_source":{"id":617,"authors_free":[{"id":873,"entry_id":617,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":274,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Musatti, Cesare Alberto","free_first_name":"Cesare Alberto","free_last_name":"Musatti","norm_person":{"id":274,"first_name":"Cesare Alberto","last_name":"Musatti","full_name":"Musatti, Cesare Alberto","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averro\u00e8 e Pietro d'Alvernia","main_title":{"title":"Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averro\u00e8 e Pietro d'Alvernia"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktuV2BLT9ymSyUA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":274,"full_name":"Musatti, Cesare Alberto","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":617,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestio","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"524\u2013549"}},"sort":["Il De caelo di Aristotele e alcuni suoi commentatori: Simplicio, Averro\u00e8 e Pietro d'Alvernia"]}

  • PAGE 4 OF 15