Title | The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | Leiden – Boston – Köln |
Publisher | Brill |
Series | Medieval and early modern science |
Volume | 5 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EZqjexic8BQf4du |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"370","_score":null,"_source":{"id":370,"authors_free":[{"id":1991,"entry_id":370,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1992,"entry_id":370,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1993,"entry_id":370,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","free_first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","main_title":{"title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EZqjexic8BQf4du","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | Stuttgart |
Publisher | Franz Steiner Verlag |
Series | Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben |
Volume | 3 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Schuol, Monika , Hartmann, Udo , Luther, Andreas |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DylegAPEIEBEXcg |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"380","_score":null,"_source":{"id":380,"authors_free":[{"id":496,"entry_id":380,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":171,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuol, Monika","free_first_name":"Monika","free_last_name":"Schuol","norm_person":{"id":171,"first_name":"Monika","last_name":"Schuol","full_name":"Schuol, Monika","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124269826","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2007,"entry_id":380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hartmann, Udo","free_first_name":"Udo","free_last_name":"Hartmann","norm_person":{"id":170,"first_name":"Udo","last_name":"Hartmann","full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133793001","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2008,"entry_id":380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":172,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luther, Andreas ","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Luther","norm_person":{"id":172,"first_name":"Luther","last_name":"Andreas","full_name":"Luther, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133295524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum","main_title":{"title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DylegAPEIEBEXcg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":171,"full_name":"Schuol, Monika","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":172,"full_name":"Luther, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":380,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | 'Interpretation' in Antike und Mittelalter |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung |
Pages | 79-101 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zwierlein, Otto |
Editor(s) | Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulz, Christian |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/at6Q6biYuVlMOTX |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"420","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":420,"authors_free":[{"id":561,"entry_id":420,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":370,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zwierlein, Otto","free_first_name":"Otto","free_last_name":"Zwierlein","norm_person":{"id":370,"first_name":"Otto","last_name":"Zwierlein","full_name":"Zwierlein, Otto","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/106140590","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":562,"entry_id":420,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":563,"entry_id":420,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulz, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Schulz","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Interpretation' in Antike und Mittelalter","main_title":{"title":"'Interpretation' in Antike und Mittelalter"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/at6Q6biYuVlMOTX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":370,"full_name":"Zwierlein, Otto","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":420,"section_of":267,"pages":"79-101","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":267,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Geerlings2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"http:\/\/zotero.org\/groups\/313293\/items\/CQ6GSFW8","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/t1Wsaktcc3bLUhj","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Journal | Ancient World |
Volume | 33 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 45–69 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Walker, Joel Thomas |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cNwfGbbhpYWUoRe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"446","_score":null,"_source":{"id":446,"authors_free":[{"id":598,"entry_id":446,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":355,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","free_first_name":"Joel Thomas","free_last_name":"Walker","norm_person":{"id":355,"first_name":"Joel Thomas","last_name":"Walker","full_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131718118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran","main_title":{"title":"The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cNwfGbbhpYWUoRe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":355,"full_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":446,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient World","volume":"33","issue":"1","pages":"45\u201369"}},"sort":[2002]}
Title | On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | Stuttgart |
Publisher | Franz Steiner Verlag |
Series | Die Philosophie der Antike |
Volume | 14 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Wöhrle, Georg |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BA4SQToR9Hp9pxg |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"31","_score":null,"_source":{"id":31,"authors_free":[{"id":35,"entry_id":31,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William. W.","free_first_name":"William. W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":36,"entry_id":31,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","main_title":{"title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BA4SQToR9Hp9pxg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Abū l-ʿAbbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von Rüdiger Arnzen |
Type | Monograph |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | Köln – Essen |
Publisher | Rüdiger Arnzen |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Arnzen, Rüdiger , Nairīzī, al-Faḍl Ibn-Ḥātim an- |
Editor(s) | Arnzen, Rüdiger |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UGFNbznLKoIBnda |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"83","_score":null,"_source":{"id":83,"authors_free":[{"id":91,"entry_id":83,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2349,"entry_id":83,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":449,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b, al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","free_first_name":"al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","free_last_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b","norm_person":{"id":449,"first_name":"al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","last_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b","full_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b, al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"ttp:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/101243030","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2350,"entry_id":83,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ab\u016b l-\u02bfAbb\u0101s an-Nayr\u012bz\u012bs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","main_title":{"title":"Ab\u016b l-\u02bfAbb\u0101s an-Nayr\u012bz\u012bs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?)Simplicius' Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I. Eingeleitet, ediert und mit arabischen und lateinischen Glossaren versehen von R\u00fcdiger Arnzen"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UGFNbznLKoIBnda","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":449,"full_name":"Nair\u012bz\u012b, al-Fa\u1e0dl Ibn-\u1e24\u0101tim an-","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":83,"pubplace":"K\u00f6ln \u2013 Essen","publisher":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | undefined |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | München - Leipzig |
Publisher | Saur |
Series | Beiträge zur Altertumskunde |
Volume | 160 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Kobusch, Theo , Erler, Michael |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CV4WGr0bsq1IRut |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"265","_score":null,"_source":{"id":265,"authors_free":[{"id":335,"entry_id":265,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":163,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kobusch, Theo","free_first_name":"Theo","free_last_name":"Kobusch","norm_person":{"id":163,"first_name":"Theo","last_name":"Kobusch","full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115417486","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1998,"entry_id":265,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sp\u00e4tantiken Denkens \/ Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. M\u00e4rz 2001 in W\u00fcrzburg","main_title":{"title":"Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sp\u00e4tantiken Denkens \/ Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. M\u00e4rz 2001 in W\u00fcrzburg"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CV4WGr0bsq1IRut","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":163,"full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":265,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen - Leipzig","publisher":"Saur","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Mélanges Gilbert Dagron |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | French |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | Paris |
Publisher | Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance |
Series | Travaux et mémoires / Collège de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance |
Volume | 14 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Déroche, Vincent |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d3igors0KKxjGuv |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"280","_score":null,"_source":{"id":280,"authors_free":[{"id":350,"entry_id":280,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":504,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","free_first_name":"Vincent","free_last_name":"D\u00e9roche","norm_person":{"id":504,"first_name":"Vincent","last_name":"D\u00e9roche","full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033332305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"M\u00e9langes Gilbert Dagron","main_title":{"title":"M\u00e9langes Gilbert Dagron"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d3igors0KKxjGuv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":504,"full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":280,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","series":"Travaux et m\u00e9moires \/ Coll\u00e8ge de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | New Jersey |
Publisher | Transaction Publisher |
Series | Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities |
Volume | 11 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M. |
Translator(s) |
Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential "is," and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, "Eudemus and the Peripatos"; Tiziano Dorandi, "Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi"; William W. Fortenbaugh, "Eudemus' Work On Expression"; Pamela M. Huby, "Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?"; Robert Sharples, "Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time"; Han Baltussen, "Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics"; Sylvia Berryman, "Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts"; Istvbn Bodnbr, "Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, "Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus"; Stephen White, "Eudemus the Naturalist"; J orgen Mejer, "Eudemus and the History of Science"; Leonid Zhmud, "Eudemus' History of Mathematics"; Alan C. Bowen, "Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses"; Dmitri Panchenko, "Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light"; and Gbbor Betegh, "On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.""[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments." -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ej9J55UD4Czen6M |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"287","_score":null,"_source":{"id":287,"authors_free":[{"id":356,"entry_id":287,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William. W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1833,"entry_id":287,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus of Rhodes"},"abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ej9J55UD4Czen6M","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Publication Place | Leiden – Boston – Köln |
Publisher | Brill |
Series | Mnemosyne |
Volume | Supplementum 230 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian |
Translator(s) |
This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N7JuSfK6tmKQpol |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"293","_score":null,"_source":{"id":293,"authors_free":[{"id":1849,"entry_id":293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":40,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Foley, John Miles","free_first_name":"John Miles","free_last_name":"Foley","norm_person":{"id":40,"first_name":"John Miles","last_name":"Foley","full_name":"Foley, John Miles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137343485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1850,"entry_id":293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":41,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Worthington, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Worthington","norm_person":{"id":41,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Worthington","full_name":"Worthington, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136869742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece","main_title":{"title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece"},"abstract":"This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N7JuSfK6tmKQpol","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":40,"full_name":"Foley, John Miles","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":41,"full_name":"Worthington, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":293,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Mnemosyne","volume":"Supplementum 230","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Publication Place | Leuven |
Publisher | KU Leuven, Humanities and Social Sciences Group, Institute of Philosophy |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The aim of this study was to analyze Simplicius’ explanation of qualitative properties in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. In this commentary, Simplicius discusses qualities in the framework of Aristotle’s categorial scheme and neither explicitly emphasizes the topic nor particularly problematizes it. In order to analyze Simplicius’ conception of quality, it was thus necessary to compile and systematize his remarks on qualities or remarks that might be relevant for an explanation of qualities from different places in the text. I grouped the different information in three main parts, each consisting of two to four chapters. The first part set out to provide some general information on Simplicius, his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories and the notion of quality in Aristotle in order to pave the way for an analysis of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities. While the second part remained to a large extent within the terminological framework of the Categories, the third part mainly drew on Neoplatonic theorems and focused on the ontological explanation of qualities within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. In what follows, I will summarize the results of the three main parts of the study and present difficulties that the study faced, shortcomings that the study includes and questions that the study evokes. The first part of the study elaborated on Simplicius’ exegesis and the place of his commentary in the Neoplatonic commentary tradition on Aristotle’s Categories. Its aim was to provide the reader with the textual and theoretical context in and with which Simplicius works. Hence, it focused in part on Simplicius as a member of the Neoplatonic school and his commentary as a part and witness of an exegetical tradition on Aristotle’s Categories that began centuries before Simplicius. However, Simplicius’ philosophical background, his sources and his presuppositions regarding Aristotle’s Categories are relevant for a study of his conception of qualities because they influence his treatment of the topic. Although Simplicius appears to have a keen interest in Aristotle’s text, he interprets it against the background of his own Neoplatonic views. As it has been pointed out in the first part of the study, there is the difficulty that Simplicius does not spell out or elaborate on Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrine in his commentary. Since the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework represents the theoretical framework in and with which Simplicius works, an understanding of its principles is necessary for an understanding of Simplicius’ discussions. In order to provide an explanation of Neoplatonic metaphysical assumptions when necessary, I thus relied on information that can be found in Neoplatonic authors prior to Simplicius. This way of proceeding implies the problematic assumption that Simplicius does not deviate from these authors regarding the understanding of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. This assumption is problematic because it may obscure Simplicius’ actual position if it differs. At least on the basis of Simplicius’ text, there is no indication that Simplicius’ conception of general elements of Neoplatonic metaphysics would differ from that of his predecessors. It has been pointed out that Simplicius frequently refers to predecessors and even states explicitly that, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, he follows the commentaries by Porphyry and Iamblichus in their interpretation of the Categories. Simplicius’ commentaries are well known for the richness of references to and presentations of views held by predecessors. He has often been used as a source of information on other philosophers for works that are no longer extant otherwise. His Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories is no exception; it is rich in references to philosophers belonging not only to the Neoplatonic tradition but also to other philosophical traditions, such as Stoicism or the Peripatetic school. The present study does not elaborate on references to members of other philosophical schools. A lot could have been said about Simplicius’ presentation and discussion of views held by these philosophers. It may even be fruitful to examine in detail Simplicius’ treatment and use of views held by philosophers working in the Stoic or Peripatetic tradition. Such investigations would also be interesting for our understanding of the historical development of certain concepts. The omission thus requires an explanation. The explanation is, admittedly, of a rather pragmatic nature. A discussion of all the views that Simplicius mentions would have exceeded the scope of this study. A selection always requires good reasons. Apart from Porphyry and Iamblichus, I could not justify in a consistent manner, with regard to the topic of this study, why I would focus on the one view more than on the other. Hence, although I think that it would be interesting to investigate the possible influences of, for example, Alexander of Aphrodisias or of Stoic views on Simplicius, I did not conduct such investigations in this study. They may be topics for possible future projects. As stated, the main sources for his commentary are, according to Simplicius himself, Porphyry’s long commentary on the Categories and, even to a bigger extent, Iamblichus’ commentary. The unfortunate fact that the two commentaries are no longer extant and Simplicius’ modest self-presentation as a commentator make it difficult to assess the proportion between copying or paraphrasing his sources and presenting own ideas in Simplicius’ commentary. It has also been pointed out that some, if not all, presuppositions of Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Categories stem from his main source Iamblichus. Simplicius’ core presuppositions are his interpretation of the Categories’ σκοπός as a synthesis of words, beings and notions, his assumption that the main source of the Categories is the Pseudo-Pythagorean treatise On the Universal Formulae by Pseudo-Archytas, his conviction that Aristotle uses obscurity on purpose in his writings and the assumption that there is a harmony between Aristotle and Plato on the majority of points. As it has been shown in the course of the study, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, Simplicius appears to extend the idea of a harmony also to Porphyry and Iamblichus. Besides the attempt to provide the philosophical background of Simplicius’ commentary, to contextualize it within the commentary tradition on the Categories, and to introduce Simplicius’ main sources and core presuppositions in this commentary, the first part also includes an overview of the accounts of quality that can be found in Aristotle’s works. This overview is meant to show that Aristotle approaches qualities from different perspectives in his works. I distinguished between two main approaches: 1. the explanation of qualities from a logical-metaphysical perspective, included, for example, in Aristotle’s Categories and Metaphysics, and 2. the explanation of qualities from the perspective of natural philosophy, included, for example, in Aristotle’s De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione. As the analyses especially in part three suggested, Simplicius appears not only to be well acquainted with the explanations of qualities that Aristotle presents elsewhere, he also integrates elements of these explanations into his discussion of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius’ explanation of quality. As stated, in order to analyze Simplicius’ conception of quality, it was necessary to compile and systematize relevant remarks from different places in the text. This way of proceeding requires caution, as it runs the risk of neglecting the context of the relevant individual passages. Given that Simplicius works closely and in sequence with Aristotle’s text and discusses aspects of the text within the framework of the lemmata on which he comments, a consideration of the context, however, is as important as a thorough analysis of the relevant passages themselves. The present study tried to accommodate both methodological strategies. It thereby runs another risk common to compromises, namely to fail to do both a thorough investigation of individual passages and a consideration of the context properly. I gave priority to the thought that both methodological strategies are indispensable for an understanding of Simplicius’ conception of qualities. The second part aimed at providing a categorial analysis of quality. It focused on quality as one of the ten Aristotelian categories and thus dealt with the regulations and characteristics that apply to quality qua category. Aristotle draws a distinction between the category of substance and the other nine categories in that he ascribes an ontological priority to the former. As suggested by Aristotle’s fourfold division of τὰ ὄντα in the second chapter of the Categories but not explicitly articulated with regard to any of the nine non-substantial categories, Simplicius transposes the intracategorial structure and regulations spelled out for the category of substance onto the category of quality. The category of quality thus comprises genera and species of quality and their individual instantiations. Moreover, the genera of quality are synonymously predicated of their species which in turn are synonymously predicated of their instantiations. According to the rule of transitivity, which equally applies, the genera of quality are consequently also synonymously predicated of the instantiations. While the intracategorial relation, i.e. the relation between genera and species and instantiations of quality, is a relation of unilinear synonymous predication, the intercategorial relation, i.e. the relation between a quality and a substance, is a relation of homonymous predication. Although Aristotle does not explicitly mention all these features of quality in his Categories, they are compatible with his text. Aristotle’s text leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation which not only facilitates the transposition of regulations and structural elements within the categorial theory itself but also enables the integration of, or harmonization with, (Neo)Platonic theoretical elements. Simplicius’ harmonizing tendency as an interpretative strategy becomes most apparent in the analyses conducted in the second part of this study. It is suggested by Simplicius’ way of presenting predication and participation as two different but non-conflicting theories used to explain the relation among entities in the natural realm, by his interpretation of the predicate as an immanent universal, by his explanation of the ἴδιον of quality against the background of likeness and unlikeness and by his use of the idea of a latitude of participation in his discussion of the question whether the category of quality admits of a more and a less. The discussions in the second part have also shown that some problems or questions that scholars have raised with regard to Aristotle’s text appeared to be unproblematic for Simplicius, such as the compatibility of the categorial theory with hylomorphism or the interpretation of homonymy as comprehensive homonymy. It is worth noting that Simplicius displays a charitable interpretation of Aristotle’s text with regard to these questions. Other topics discussed in Aristotelian scholarship are more problematic for Simplicius, especially those which are in apparent conflict with Platonic doctrine. He explicitly addresses the apparent primacy of individual substances in the Categories and tries at length to reconcile it with the Platonic view that the forms are prior to the individuals. He does not openly address 219 but implicitly deviates from the assumption held by many Aristotelian scholars that synonymous predication yields essential predication. He argues that, although genera, species and differentiae are all synonymously predicated of that which is beneath them, only genera and species are also essentially predicated of that which is beneath them whereas the differentiae are not essentially but qualitatively predicated of that which is beneath them. It also becomes apparent in the second part that the study of quality in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories includes an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified. The differentiation of the possible meanings of the qualified represents the basis, or preparatory work, for such an analysis. The third part of the study exceeds to some extent the categorial framework and expands on the Neoplatonic elements of Simplicius’ explanation of quality and its relation to the qualified. In this regard, it also elaborates on certain notions that have already been introduced in the second part but become most relevant in the context of an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified within a Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The notion of participation is one of them. Simplicius does not only present participation, like predication, as a model to explain the relation between intracategorial entities in his omments on chapter five but he also explicitly applies it to the entities subsumed under the category of quality, when he refers to the quality as μετεχόμενον and to the qualified as μετέχον. Simplicius associates quality and the qualified with these two elements of the Neoplatonic triad of participation and analogically applies the characteristics of those elements (and their relation to each other) to quality and the qualified (and their relation to each other). For an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified, it was thus helpful to have a closer look at the structure of the triad of participation, and especially at its elements, their characteristics and their relations to each other. The association of quality with the μετεχόμενον and of the qualified with the μετέχον, however, transfers a problem to the category of quality that Simplicius, like other Neoplatonists, mainly discusses in the course of his comments on the category of substance: the question of ontological dependence and, particularly, whether the ontological relation between quality and the qualified is a relation of ontological priority and posteriority or of ontological simultaneity. Simplicius describes quality as that which is participated in by the qualified, as that which is in the qualified and of which its being and its being participated in is one. The qualified in turn participates in quality and receives its being qualified from the quality. Simplicius thus appears to describe the relation between quality and the qualified, on the one hand, as a relation of an ontological priority of the quality over the qualified and, on the other hand, as a relation of ontological simultaneity. It has been shown in the third part of the study that it is possible to reconcile these apparently conflicting assumptions in Simplicius by means of two disambiguations: first, the differentiation of ontological priority into existential priority and essential priority and, second, the distinction between qualified qua single instantiation of the corresponding quality and qualified qua sum of all instantiations of the corresponding quality. While these investigations of the relation between quality and the qualified conducted in the first two chapters of the third part of the study involve the understanding of the qualified as an instantiation of the corresponding quality, the analyses of the third and fourth chapter involve the understanding of the qualified as a qualified substance. If the qualified is understood as a qualified substance, an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified evokes several questions. The third chapter deals with the following two: first, how can differences among participants of the same quality be explained, i.e. what is the reason for gradual differences of participation or instantiations and, second, how can it be explained that a particular quality is instantiated in one substance rather than in another substance, i.e. what is the condition for participation as such. In order to answer these questions, the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης becomes crucial. This notion had already been introduced in the second part of the study in the course of an analysis of the more and the less in the category of quality. As stated, Simplicius connects this question with the idea that participation involves latitude. The latitude of participation, in turn, is in accordance with the participant’s ἐπιτηδειότης to receive the information from that in which it participates. The use of the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in the context of the analysis of the relation between quality and qualified has its roots in the use of ἐπιτηδειότης in the theory of participation established by Simplicius’ predecessors, where it frequently occurs as an aspect of the explanation of the relation between μετεχόμενον and μετέχον. However, the question whether ἐπιτηδειότης is a technical term in late Antiquity or a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις has been a subject of debate among scholars. Since also Simplicius uses these two terms, especially in his comments on the category of quality, I tried to clarify Simplicius’ understanding of ἐπιτηδειότης and of the relation between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his comments on quality. The analysis in the third chapter suggested that Simplicius distinguishes between a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις and a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that cannot be associated with the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις. Ἐπιτηδειότης in the latter sense is simpler, precedes δύναμις and appears to be a simple propensity of the participant for something more complete than itself, rooted in higher principles within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The difficulty that this analysis faced was the fact that, although it was suggested by Simplicius’ remarks, Simplicius himself does not explicitly distinguish between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his comments on the category of quality. As I argued, however, this fact could be interpreted again as a strategy to accommodate and harmonize the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian theory. The fourth and last chapter deals with another important question that arises in the framework of an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified qua qualified substance. Based on the possibility to distinguish between attributes that always belong to their subjects and are even completive or essential to their subject and attributes that are adventitious to their subject, the question of the categorial status of essential qualities arises. While the classification of adventitious attributes as accidents appears to be more or less unproblematic, the integration of completive attributes into Aristotle’s categorial scheme poses a problem. The answer to this question builds on the results of the previous analyses and eventually leads to the attempt to present a comprehensive answer to the initial question of the categorial status and the ontological explanation of qualities (both essential and adventitious qualities) in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. By means of an analysis of different passages on, or involving, essential qualities and a comparison with Simplicius’ conception of differentiae, I argued against the claim held by scholars that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as substances. According to the interpretation presented in the fourth chapter, Simplicius ascribes both a substantial and a qualitative aspect to essential qualities and differentiae. Depending on the context, he stresses the one or the other aspect. Simplicius, a proponent of the idea that Aristotle’s categorial scheme is complete and exhaustive, does not appear to think that these entities would not fit into Aristotle’s scheme. Rather, Simplicius explains their double structure by their participation in both substance and quality. He does not discuss or even problematize the fact that such a conception would challenge Aristotle’s scheme. Interestingly, Simplicius’ assumption that these entities are substantial but no substances also suggests that he distinguishes between that which is substantial and that which is a substance. Although Simplicius undoubtedly conceives of those qualities as being substantial, he appears to distinguish them from substances and restricts the latter to matter, form and the matter-form compound. By means of a recourse to Proclus’ remarks in his Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, I tried to show that such a distinction including essential qualities can already be found among Simplicius’ predecessors. Moreover, I tried to present an ontological explanation of qualities that takes Simplicius’ remarks on both essential and adventitious qualities into account. I argued that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as belonging to the immanent form which sends forth these qualities as soon as it unfolds itself in body. These qualities thus naturally inhere in the subject and cannot be separated without the corruption of the subject. Adventitious qualities are immanent logoi which do not belong to the form. They enter the subject after the compounding of matter and form; or in other words, the participation in these logoi is posterior to the constitution of the subject. In this way, they come in from outside and can be separated without the corruption of the subject. However, they do not appear to operate independently from the immanent form. The immanent form prefigures the subject, limits its possibilities in participation and determines its capacities for receiving contraries. It thereby establishes the conditions for these logoi to operate. As it has been pointed out, Simplicius does not transfer the distinction between essential and adventitious to the level of natural logoi and, consequently, does not make the logos of each quality twofold. On the contrary, he restricts this distinction to the realm of bodies and can thus maintain the assumption that the logos of each quality is one. This account is an attempt to provide a consistent explanation of qualities in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. However, it leaves a number of questions open for further research. One group of questions concerns the relation between essential qualities and differentiae. As stated, Simplicius does not only treat them similarly, he also often uses the same examples for essential qualities and differentiae. This situation is probably the reason why scholars on Simplicius have discussed these topics together (with different results though). However, if both differentiae and essential qualities are substantial and belong to the form but are not substances, the question arises how their differences can be explained. One of these differences is that, according to Simplicius, an essential quality, such as the whiteness of snow, can admit of a more and a less, whereas no differentia admits of a more and a less. A related question regarding differentiae is the following: if the differentiae are intermediates and participate in both substance and quality, why is there actually no differentia that admits of a more and a less? Is there, eventually, perhaps a distinction or hierarchy among essential attributes? On the basis of the analysis of essential and adventitious qualities, Simplicius’ conception of immanent forms is a topic that is highly interesting and would deserve further investigation. According to the analysis conducted in the last chapter, both essential qualities and adventitious qualities depend on immanent forms. The former do so because they belong to this form, the latter because the immanent form prefigures the subject and thus determines what qualities it can receive and to what extent it can receive them. In connection with this topic, it would also be interesting to investigate the question as to what there are natural logoi of. Another highly interesting topic linked to the research conducted in this study would be the comparison of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories with the presentation of material properties in the framework of a discussion of Plato’s geometric atomism included in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus and Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo. Such a comparison could be very interesting because it may contribute to the clarification of strategies that some Neoplatonists have adopted in order to deal with the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories about elemental constitution (including elemental properties) and may thus contribute to our understanding of Neoplatonic natural philosophy in general. Although I think that this comparison is highly interesting, I have focused in this study on Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. I hope that the preceding pages have shown that this explanation was worth a study of its own. [conclusion, pp. 215-223] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Lz85xNWHRXpvd29 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1395","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1395,"authors_free":[{"id":2171,"entry_id":1395,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"The aim of this study was to analyze Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualitative properties in his \r\nCommentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. In this commentary, Simplicius discusses qualities in \r\nthe framework of Aristotle\u2019s categorial scheme and neither explicitly emphasizes the topic nor \r\nparticularly problematizes it. In order to analyze Simplicius\u2019 conception of quality, it was thus \r\nnecessary to compile and systematize his remarks on qualities or remarks that might be \r\nrelevant for an explanation of qualities from different places in the text. I grouped the \r\ndifferent information in three main parts, each consisting of two to four chapters. The first \r\npart set out to provide some general information on Simplicius, his Commentary on \r\nAristotle\u2019s Categories and the notion of quality in Aristotle in order to pave the way for an \r\nanalysis of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. \r\nThe second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities. \r\nWhile the second part remained to a large extent within the terminological framework of the \r\nCategories, the third part mainly drew on Neoplatonic theorems and focused on the \r\nontological explanation of qualities within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. In what \r\nfollows, I will summarize the results of the three main parts of the study and present \r\ndifficulties that the study faced, shortcomings that the study includes and questions that the \r\nstudy evokes. \r\nThe first part of the study elaborated on Simplicius\u2019 exegesis and the place of his commentary \r\nin the Neoplatonic commentary tradition on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Its aim was to provide the \r\nreader with the textual and theoretical context in and with which Simplicius works. Hence, it \r\nfocused in part on Simplicius as a member of the Neoplatonic school and his commentary as a \r\npart and witness of an exegetical tradition on Aristotle\u2019s Categories that began centuries \r\nbefore Simplicius. However, Simplicius\u2019 philosophical background, his sources and his \r\npresuppositions regarding Aristotle\u2019s Categories are relevant for a study of his conception of \r\nqualities because they influence his treatment of the topic. Although Simplicius appears to \r\nhave a keen interest in Aristotle\u2019s text, he interprets it against the background of his own \r\nNeoplatonic views. As it has been pointed out in the first part of the study, there is the \r\ndifficulty that Simplicius does not spell out or elaborate on Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrine \r\nin his commentary. Since the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework represents the theoretical \r\nframework in and with which Simplicius works, an understanding of its principles is necessary for an understanding of Simplicius\u2019 discussions. In order to provide an explanation of Neoplatonic metaphysical assumptions when necessary, I thus relied on information that can be found in Neoplatonic authors prior to Simplicius. This way of proceeding implies the problematic assumption that Simplicius does not deviate from these authors regarding the understanding of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. This assumption is problematic because it may obscure Simplicius\u2019 actual position if it differs. At least on the basis of Simplicius\u2019 text, there is no indication that Simplicius\u2019 conception of general elements of Neoplatonic metaphysics would differ from that of his predecessors. \r\nIt has been pointed out that Simplicius frequently refers to predecessors and even states explicitly that, in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, he follows the commentaries by Porphyry and Iamblichus in their interpretation of the Categories. Simplicius\u2019 commentaries are well known for the richness of references to and presentations of views held by \r\npredecessors. He has often been used as a source of information on other philosophers for \r\nworks that are no longer extant otherwise. His Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories is no \r\nexception; it is rich in references to philosophers belonging not only to the Neoplatonic tradition but also to other philosophical traditions, such as Stoicism or the Peripatetic school. The present study does not elaborate on references to members of other philosophical schools. A lot could have been said about Simplicius\u2019 presentation and discussion of views held by these philosophers. It may even be fruitful to examine in detail Simplicius\u2019 treatment and use of views held by philosophers working in the Stoic or Peripatetic tradition. Such \r\ninvestigations would also be interesting for our understanding of the historical development of \r\ncertain concepts. The omission thus requires an explanation. The explanation is, admittedly, \r\nof a rather pragmatic nature. A discussion of all the views that Simplicius mentions would \r\nhave exceeded the scope of this study. A selection always requires good reasons. Apart from \r\nPorphyry and Iamblichus, I could not justify in a consistent manner, with regard to the topic \r\nof this study, why I would focus on the one view more than on the other. Hence, although I \r\nthink that it would be interesting to investigate the possible influences of, for example, \r\nAlexander of Aphrodisias or of Stoic views on Simplicius, I did not conduct such investigations in this study. They may be topics for possible future projects. As stated, the main sources for his commentary are, according to Simplicius himself, \r\nPorphyry\u2019s long commentary on the Categories and, even to a bigger extent, Iamblichus\u2019 \r\ncommentary. The unfortunate fact that the two commentaries are no longer extant and \r\nSimplicius\u2019 modest self-presentation as a commentator make it difficult to assess the \r\nproportion between copying or paraphrasing his sources and presenting own ideas in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentary. It has also been pointed out that some, if not all, presuppositions of \r\nSimplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories stem from his main source Iamblichus. Simplicius\u2019 core presuppositions are his interpretation of the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 as a synthesis of words, beings and notions, his assumption that the main source of the Categories is the Pseudo-Pythagorean treatise On the Universal Formulae by Pseudo-Archytas, his conviction that Aristotle uses obscurity on purpose in his writings and the assumption that there is a harmony between Aristotle and Plato on the majority of points. As it has been shown in the course of the study, in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Simplicius appears to extend the idea of a harmony also to Porphyry and Iamblichus. \r\nBesides the attempt to provide the philosophical background of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, to contextualize it within the commentary tradition on the Categories, and to introduce Simplicius\u2019 main sources and core presuppositions in this commentary, the first part also includes an overview of the accounts of quality that can be found in Aristotle\u2019s works. This overview is meant to show that Aristotle approaches qualities from different perspectives in his works. I distinguished between two main approaches: 1. the explanation of qualities from \r\na logical-metaphysical perspective, included, for example, in Aristotle\u2019s Categories and Metaphysics, and 2. the explanation of qualities from the perspective of natural philosophy, \r\nincluded, for example, in Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione. As the \r\nanalyses especially in part three suggested, Simplicius appears not only to be well acquainted \r\nwith the explanations of qualities that Aristotle presents elsewhere, he also integrates elements \r\nof these explanations into his discussion of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nCategories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of quality. As stated, in order to analyze Simplicius\u2019 conception of quality, it was necessary to compile \r\nand systematize relevant remarks from different places in the text. This way of proceeding \r\nrequires caution, as it runs the risk of neglecting the context of the relevant individual \r\npassages. Given that Simplicius works closely and in sequence with Aristotle\u2019s text and \r\ndiscusses aspects of the text within the framework of the lemmata on which he comments, a \r\nconsideration of the context, however, is as important as a thorough analysis of the relevant \r\npassages themselves. The present study tried to accommodate both methodological strategies. \r\nIt thereby runs another risk common to compromises, namely to fail to do both a thorough investigation of individual passages and a consideration of the context properly. I gave priority to the thought that both methodological strategies are indispensable for an \r\nunderstanding of Simplicius\u2019 conception of qualities. The second part aimed at providing a categorial analysis of quality. It focused on quality as one of the ten Aristotelian categories and thus dealt with the regulations and characteristics that apply to quality qua category. Aristotle draws a distinction between the category of substance and the other nine categories in that he ascribes an ontological priority to the former. As suggested by Aristotle\u2019s fourfold division of \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 in the second chapter of the Categories but not explicitly articulated with regard to any of the nine non-substantial \r\ncategories, Simplicius transposes the intracategorial structure and regulations spelled out for the category of substance onto the category of quality. The category of quality thus comprises \r\ngenera and species of quality and their individual instantiations. Moreover, the genera of \r\nquality are synonymously predicated of their species which in turn are synonymously \r\npredicated of their instantiations. According to the rule of transitivity, which equally applies, \r\nthe genera of quality are consequently also synonymously predicated of the instantiations. \r\nWhile the intracategorial relation, i.e. the relation between genera and species and \r\ninstantiations of quality, is a relation of unilinear synonymous predication, the intercategorial \r\nrelation, i.e. the relation between a quality and a substance, is a relation of homonymous \r\npredication. Although Aristotle does not explicitly mention all these features of quality in his \r\nCategories, they are compatible with his text. Aristotle\u2019s text leaves quite a lot of room for \r\ninterpretation which not only facilitates the transposition of regulations and structural \r\nelements within the categorial theory itself but also enables the integration of, or \r\nharmonization with, (Neo)Platonic theoretical elements. Simplicius\u2019 harmonizing tendency as \r\nan interpretative strategy becomes most apparent in the analyses conducted in the second part \r\nof this study. It is suggested by Simplicius\u2019 way of presenting predication and participation as \r\ntwo different but non-conflicting theories used to explain the relation among entities in the \r\nnatural realm, by his interpretation of the predicate as an immanent universal, by his \r\nexplanation of the \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of quality against the background of likeness and unlikeness and by \r\nhis use of the idea of a latitude of participation in his discussion of the question whether the \r\ncategory of quality admits of a more and a less. \r\nThe discussions in the second part have also shown that some problems or questions that \r\nscholars have raised with regard to Aristotle\u2019s text appeared to be unproblematic for \r\nSimplicius, such as the compatibility of the categorial theory with hylomorphism or the \r\ninterpretation of homonymy as comprehensive homonymy. It is worth noting that Simplicius \r\ndisplays a charitable interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s text with regard to these questions. Other \r\ntopics discussed in Aristotelian scholarship are more problematic for Simplicius, especially \r\nthose which are in apparent conflict with Platonic doctrine. He explicitly addresses the \r\napparent primacy of individual substances in the Categories and tries at length to reconcile it \r\nwith the Platonic view that the forms are prior to the individuals. He does not openly address \r\n219 \r\n \r\nbut implicitly deviates from the assumption held by many Aristotelian scholars that \r\nsynonymous predication yields essential predication. He argues that, although genera, species and differentiae are all synonymously predicated of that which is beneath them, only genera and species are also essentially predicated of that which is beneath them whereas the \r\ndifferentiae are not essentially but qualitatively predicated of that which is beneath them. It \r\nalso becomes apparent in the second part that the study of quality in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary \r\non Aristotle\u2019s Categories includes an analysis of the relation between quality and the \r\nqualified. The differentiation of the possible meanings of the qualified represents the basis, or \r\npreparatory work, for such an analysis. \r\nThe third part of the study exceeds to some extent the categorial framework and expands on \r\nthe Neoplatonic elements of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of quality and its relation to the \r\nqualified. In this regard, it also elaborates on certain notions that have already been introduced \r\nin the second part but become most relevant in the context of an analysis of the relation \r\nbetween quality and the qualified within a Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The notion \r\nof participation is one of them. Simplicius does not only present participation, like predication, as a model to explain the relation between intracategorial entities in his \r\nomments on chapter five but he also explicitly applies it to the entities subsumed under the \r\ncategory of quality, when he refers to the quality as \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and to the qualified as \r\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. Simplicius associates quality and the qualified with these two elements of the \r\nNeoplatonic triad of participation and analogically applies the characteristics of those elements (and their relation to each other) to quality and the qualified (and their relation to \r\neach other). For an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified, it was thus \r\nhelpful to have a closer look at the structure of the triad of participation, and especially at its \r\nelements, their characteristics and their relations to each other. The association of quality with \r\nthe \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and of the qualified with the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, however, transfers a problem to the \r\ncategory of quality that Simplicius, like other Neoplatonists, mainly discusses in the course of \r\nhis comments on the category of substance: the question of ontological dependence and, \r\nparticularly, whether the ontological relation between quality and the qualified is a relation of \r\nontological priority and posteriority or of ontological simultaneity. Simplicius describes \r\nquality as that which is participated in by the qualified, as that which is in the qualified and of \r\nwhich its being and its being participated in is one. The qualified in turn participates in quality \r\nand receives its being qualified from the quality. Simplicius thus appears to describe the \r\nrelation between quality and the qualified, on the one hand, as a relation of an ontological \r\npriority of the quality over the qualified and, on the other hand, as a relation of ontological simultaneity. It has been shown in the third part of the study that it is possible to reconcile \r\nthese apparently conflicting assumptions in Simplicius by means of two disambiguations: \r\nfirst, the differentiation of ontological priority into existential priority and essential priority \r\nand, second, the distinction between qualified qua single instantiation of the corresponding \r\nquality and qualified qua sum of all instantiations of the corresponding quality. While these investigations of the relation between quality and the qualified conducted in the first two \r\nchapters of the third part of the study involve the understanding of the qualified as an \r\ninstantiation of the corresponding quality, the analyses of the third and fourth chapter involve \r\nthe understanding of the qualified as a qualified substance. If the qualified is understood as a qualified substance, an analysis of the relation between \r\nquality and the qualified evokes several questions. The third chapter deals with the following \r\ntwo: first, how can differences among participants of the same quality be explained, i.e. what \r\nis the reason for gradual differences of participation or instantiations and, second, how can it be explained that a particular quality is instantiated in one substance rather than in another substance, i.e. what is the condition for participation as such. In order to answer these \r\nquestions, the notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 becomes crucial. This notion had already been \r\nintroduced in the second part of the study in the course of an analysis of the more and the less \r\nin the category of quality. As stated, Simplicius connects this question with the idea that \r\nparticipation involves latitude. The latitude of participation, in turn, is in accordance with the \r\nparticipant\u2019s \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 to receive the information from that in which it participates. The use of the notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the context of the analysis of the relation between quality \r\nand qualified has its roots in the use of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the theory of participation established by Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, where it frequently occurs as an aspect of the explanation of the \r\nrelation between \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. However, the question whether \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is \r\na technical term in late Antiquity or a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \r\nhas been a subject of debate among scholars. Since also Simplicius uses these two terms, \r\nespecially in his comments on the category of quality, I tried to clarify Simplicius\u2019 understanding of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and of the relation between \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 in his \r\ncomments on quality. The analysis in the third chapter suggested that Simplicius distinguishes \r\nbetween a sense of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 that can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of \r\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 and a sense of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 that cannot be associated with the Aristotelian notion of \r\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the latter sense is simpler, precedes \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 and appears to be a \r\nsimple propensity of the participant for something more complete than itself, rooted in higher principles within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The difficulty that this analysis \r\nfaced was the fact that, although it was suggested by Simplicius\u2019 remarks, Simplicius himself \r\ndoes not explicitly distinguish between \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 in his comments on the category of quality. As I argued, however, this fact could be interpreted again as a strategy to \r\naccommodate and harmonize the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian theory. The fourth and last chapter deals with another important question that arises in the framework \r\nof an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified qua qualified substance. Based \r\non the possibility to distinguish between attributes that always belong to their subjects and are \r\neven completive or essential to their subject and attributes that are adventitious to their \r\nsubject, the question of the categorial status of essential qualities arises. While the \r\nclassification of adventitious attributes as accidents appears to be more or less unproblematic, the integration of completive attributes into Aristotle\u2019s categorial scheme poses a problem. \r\nThe answer to this question builds on the results of the previous analyses and eventually leads \r\nto the attempt to present a comprehensive answer to the initial question of the categorial status \r\nand the ontological explanation of qualities (both essential and adventitious qualities) in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. \r\nBy means of an analysis of different passages on, or involving, essential qualities and a \r\ncomparison with Simplicius\u2019 conception of differentiae, I argued against the claim held by \r\nscholars that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as substances. According to the \r\ninterpretation presented in the fourth chapter, Simplicius ascribes both a substantial and a \r\nqualitative aspect to essential qualities and differentiae. Depending on the context, he stresses \r\nthe one or the other aspect. Simplicius, a proponent of the idea that Aristotle\u2019s categorial \r\nscheme is complete and exhaustive, does not appear to think that these entities would not fit \r\ninto Aristotle\u2019s scheme. Rather, Simplicius explains their double structure by their participation in both substance and quality. He does not discuss or even problematize the fact that such a conception would challenge Aristotle\u2019s scheme. Interestingly, Simplicius\u2019 assumption that these entities are substantial but no substances also suggests that he distinguishes between that which is substantial and that which is a substance. Although \r\nSimplicius undoubtedly conceives of those qualities as being substantial, he appears to \r\ndistinguish them from substances and restricts the latter to matter, form and the matter-form \r\ncompound. By means of a recourse to Proclus\u2019 remarks in his Commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus, I tried to show that such a distinction including essential qualities can already be \r\nfound among Simplicius\u2019 predecessors. Moreover, I tried to present an ontological explanation of qualities that takes Simplicius\u2019 remarks on both essential and adventitious qualities into account. I argued that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as belonging to \r\nthe immanent form which sends forth these qualities as soon as it unfolds itself in body. These \r\nqualities thus naturally inhere in the subject and cannot be separated without the corruption of \r\nthe subject. Adventitious qualities are immanent logoi which do not belong to the form. They \r\nenter the subject after the compounding of matter and form; or in other words, the participation in these logoi is posterior to the constitution of the subject. In this way, they \r\ncome in from outside and can be separated without the corruption of the subject. However, \r\nthey do not appear to operate independently from the immanent form. The immanent form \r\nprefigures the subject, limits its possibilities in participation and determines its capacities for \r\nreceiving contraries. It thereby establishes the conditions for these logoi to operate. As it has \r\nbeen pointed out, Simplicius does not transfer the distinction between essential and adventitious to the level of natural logoi and, consequently, does not make the logos of each \r\nquality twofold. On the contrary, he restricts this distinction to the realm of bodies and can \r\nthus maintain the assumption that the logos of each quality is one. This account is an attempt to provide a consistent explanation of qualities in Simplicius\u2019 \r\nCommentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. However, it leaves a number of questions open for \r\nfurther research. One group of questions concerns the relation between essential qualities and \r\ndifferentiae. As stated, Simplicius does not only treat them similarly, he also often uses the \r\nsame examples for essential qualities and differentiae. This situation is probably the reason why scholars on Simplicius have discussed these topics together (with different results \r\nthough). However, if both differentiae and essential qualities are substantial and belong to the \r\nform but are not substances, the question arises how their differences can be explained. One \r\nof these differences is that, according to Simplicius, an essential quality, such as the whiteness \r\nof snow, can admit of a more and a less, whereas no differentia admits of a more and a less. A \r\nrelated question regarding differentiae is the following: if the differentiae are intermediates \r\nand participate in both substance and quality, why is there actually no differentia that admits \r\nof a more and a less? Is there, eventually, perhaps a distinction or hierarchy among essential \r\nattributes? On the basis of the analysis of essential and adventitious qualities, Simplicius\u2019 \r\nconception of immanent forms is a topic that is highly interesting and would deserve further \r\ninvestigation. According to the analysis conducted in the last chapter, both essential qualities \r\nand adventitious qualities depend on immanent forms. The former do so because they belong \r\nto this form, the latter because the immanent form prefigures the subject and thus determines \r\nwhat qualities it can receive and to what extent it can receive them. In connection with this \r\ntopic, it would also be interesting to investigate the question as to what there are natural logoi of. Another highly interesting topic linked to the research conducted in this study would be \r\nthe comparison of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nCategories with the presentation of material properties in the framework of a discussion of \r\nPlato\u2019s geometric atomism included in Proclus\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus and Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo. Such a comparison could be very interesting because it may contribute to the clarification of strategies that some Neoplatonists \r\nhave adopted in order to deal with the differences between Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s theories about elemental constitution (including elemental properties) and may thus contribute to our understanding of Neoplatonic natural philosophy in general. Although I think that this \r\ncomparison is highly interesting, I have focused in this study on Simplicius\u2019 explanation of \r\nqualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. I hope that the preceding pages have shown that this explanation was worth a study of its own. [conclusion, pp. 215-223]","btype":1,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Lz85xNWHRXpvd29","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1395,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"KU Leuven, Humanities and Social Sciences Group, Institute of Philosophy","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories"]}
Title | The historiographical project of the Lyceum |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 117-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the historiographical project of the Lyceum, a school of thought in ancient Greece. It examines the two main groups of ideas that influenced the Peripatetic historiography of science and the related ideas of the scientists regarding the nature of science. The development of mathematics into an axiomatic-deductive system determined the parameters for the history of science, with the history of science being a history of those results whose significance is acknowledged by the contemporary scientific community. However, the past is not rewritten each time science takes a step forward because of the cumulative character of scientific development, which allows for the integration of old notions into new theories. The text also notes the scarcity of sources from the classical period regarding the views of science held by mathematicians, astronomers, or natural scientists. Despite this, the scientific disciplines contemporary to Eudemus shaped the genre of the history of science. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QGqP7j77MXrsnVB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1215","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1215,"authors_free":[{"id":1797,"entry_id":1215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum","main_title":{"title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum"},"abstract":"This text discusses the historiographical project of the Lyceum, a school of thought in ancient Greece. It examines the two main groups of ideas that influenced the Peripatetic historiography of science and the related ideas of the scientists regarding the nature of science. The development of mathematics into an axiomatic-deductive system determined the parameters for the history of science, with the history of science being a history of those results whose significance is acknowledged by the contemporary scientific community. However, the past is not rewritten each time science takes a step forward because of the cumulative character of scientific development, which allows for the integration of old notions into new theories. The text also notes the scarcity of sources from the classical period regarding the views of science held by mathematicians, astronomers, or natural scientists. Despite this, the scientific disciplines contemporary to Eudemus shaped the genre of the history of science. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QGqP7j77MXrsnVB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1215,"section_of":1214,"pages":"117-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eTvlJiQzVaMRvEh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The historiographical project of the Lyceum"]}
Title | The history of astronomy |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 228-277 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Access | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/enPxrrLU4Nr5K6j |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1426","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1426,"authors_free":[{"id":2237,"entry_id":1426,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of astronomy","main_title":{"title":"The history of astronomy"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/enPxrrLU4Nr5K6j","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1426,"section_of":1214,"pages":"228-277","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p7eXP7te2ceddkt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The history of astronomy"]}
Title | The history of geometry |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 166-214 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Access | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sPvc6ugabcU71xS |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1427,"authors_free":[{"id":2238,"entry_id":1427,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of geometry","main_title":{"title":"The history of geometry"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sPvc6ugabcU71xS","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1427,"section_of":1214,"pages":"166-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p7eXP7te2ceddkt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The history of geometry"]}
Title | The interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Categories. Histories and Perspectives |
Pages | 35-48 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/orREzCi0lLEUII9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1407,"authors_free":[{"id":2198,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2199,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":388,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"D'Anna","norm_person":{"id":388,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"D'Anna","full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13968588X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2200,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":389,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","free_first_name":"Lorenzo","free_last_name":"Fossati","norm_person":{"id":389,"first_name":"Lorenzo","last_name":"Fossati","full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/orREzCi0lLEUII9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":388,"full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":389,"full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1407,"section_of":1408,"pages":"35-48","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1408,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1408,"pubplace":"Hildesheim, Zurich, New York","publisher":"Georg Olms Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition"]}
Title | The notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in Simplicius' discussion of quality |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
Volume | 27 |
Pages | 65-83 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I will focus on the meaning and function of epitêdeiotês in Simplicius and I will argue, based on an analysis of different passages of chapter 8 of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, that epitêdeiotês is not a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, in Simplicius either. However, it will become apparent that Simplicius does not make any effort to clearly distinguish epitêdeiotês from dynamis, an aspect that might have led Todd to assume that epitêdeiotês is a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis. The fact that Simplicius does not explicitly distinguish epitêdeiotês from dynamis does, however, not necessarily imply that he does not make anydistinctions between the two notions. [Introduction, p. 67] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iAt7auDa0df2ob0 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1150","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1150,"authors_free":[{"id":1725,"entry_id":1150,"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":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality","main_title":{"title":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality"},"abstract":"In this paper, I will focus on the meaning and function of epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas in Simplicius and I will argue, based on an analysis of different passages of chapter 8 of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, that epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas is not a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, in Simplicius either. \r\nHowever, it will become apparent that Simplicius does not make any effort to clearly distinguish epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas from dynamis, an aspect that might have led Todd to assume that epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas is a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis. The fact that Simplicius does not explicitly distinguish epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas from dynamis does, however, not necessarily imply that he does not make anydistinctions between the two notions. [Introduction, p. 67]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iAt7auDa0df2ob0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1150,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"27","issue":"","pages":"65-83"}},"sort":["The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality"]}
Title | The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Publication Place | Oakville |
Publisher | The Classical Press of Wales |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Smith, Andrew |
Translator(s) |
The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AmHPOEigYJT4NLD |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"266","_score":null,"_source":{"id":266,"authors_free":[{"id":2060,"entry_id":266,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","main_title":{"title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown"},"abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AmHPOEigYJT4NLD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZJr3WclOTT5e1jS |
{"_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":["The text of Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and the question of supralinear omicron in Greek manuscripts"]}
Title | The use of Stoic references in Simplicius’ discussion of quality (forthcoming) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy (forthcoming) |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert |
Translator(s) |
The chapter deals with Simplicius’ references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle’s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius’ account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1MPvdcR43DzLvmz |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1146","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1146,"authors_free":[{"id":1719,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1720,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":371,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":{"id":371,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Ulacco","full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156610575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1721,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":372,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joosse, Albert","free_first_name":"Albert","free_last_name":"Joosse","norm_person":{"id":372,"first_name":"Albert","last_name":"Joosse","full_name":"Joosse, Albert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality (forthcoming)","main_title":{"title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality (forthcoming)"},"abstract":"The chapter deals with Simplicius\u2019 references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle\u2019s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius\u2019 account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius\u2019 criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1MPvdcR43DzLvmz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":371,"full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":372,"full_name":"Joosse, Albert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1146,"section_of":379,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":379,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy (forthcoming)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ulacco","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Y7R5pxx0Ui4Dxae","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":379,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality (forthcoming)"]}
Title | The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 163-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
Editor(s) | Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter |
Translator(s) |
Although the metaphysical systems of the Neoplatonists at Athens were much the same, their views on the human soul, particularly on its activities, showed great divergence. This is all the more striking because they were all heavily influenced by Iamblichus. But the mode and extent of that influence varied a great deal, and their theories of the human soul varied accordingly. As a case study, I shall examine the position of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis. Both authors took Aristotle's views as the point of departure; that is obvious in Pseudo-Simplicius' commentary on the De anima and easily detectable in Proclus' commentary on the Timaeus. Moreover, both of them paid special attention to the problem of whether this sense is separate from the five particular senses or just a joint activity of the senses. My aim is to show that the different conceptions are signs of a deeper divergence. Despite the similarity of their metaphysical outlook, their views on the structure of the human soul were considerably different, and this left its mark on their accounts of the koinê aisthêsis. [Introduction, p. 163] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mmogdVPzGKbtNc8 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2066,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"Although the metaphysical systems of the Neoplatonists at Athens were much the same, their views on the human soul, particularly on its activities, showed great divergence. This is all the more striking because they were all heavily influenced by Iamblichus. But the mode and extent of that influence varied a great deal, and their theories of the human soul varied accordingly. As a case study, I shall examine the position of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Both authors took Aristotle's views as the point of departure; that is obvious in Pseudo-Simplicius' commentary on the De anima and easily detectable in Proclus' commentary on the Timaeus. Moreover, both of them paid special attention to the problem of whether this sense is separate from the five particular senses or just a joint activity of the senses. My aim is to show that the different conceptions are signs of a deeper divergence. Despite the similarity of their metaphysical outlook, their views on the structure of the human soul were considerably different, and this left its mark on their accounts of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. [Introduction, p. 163]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mmogdVPzGKbtNc8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AV77iy4WOXfGTHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"]}