| Title | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Publication Place | Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Brill's companions to classical reception |
| Volume | 13 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A. |
| Translator(s) |
| Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: ‘Early Developments in Reception’ (four chapters); ‘Early Imperial Reception’ (nine chapters); and ‘Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism’ (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":259,"authors_free":[{"id":1822,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2370,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2371,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2372,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Danielle A. ","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 13-43 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry’s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases building on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander’s and Porphyry’s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic XeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/f40u6koKhn1exfj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/f40u6koKhn1exfj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 59 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwark, Marina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (μορφή) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius’ commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus’ assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus’ position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus’assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the ’constitution thesis with Iamblichus’theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of σύλληψισς. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (κοινὴ σύλληψις) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1144,"authors_free":[{"id":1717,"entry_id":1144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)"},"abstract":"The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus\u2019 assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus\u2019 position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus\u2019assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the \u2019constitution thesis with Iamblichus\u2019theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c2. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1144,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"59"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
| Pages | 101-125 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the κόσμος. Plato’s and Aristotle’s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities. From our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding of Simplicius’ way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius’ interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JEG1kUm2Lx3tmEf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1154","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1154,"authors_free":[{"id":1728,"entry_id":1154,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary\r\non Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the \u03ba\u1f79\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities.\r\nFrom our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding\r\nof Simplicius\u2019 way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius\u2019 interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JEG1kUm2Lx3tmEf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1154,"section_of":289,"pages":"101-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T1HDXUI5JWMgcGy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
| Pages | 185-223 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Steel, C. |
| Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
| Translator(s) |
| There is undoubtedly a Platonic motivation in the commentators’ refusal to accept Aristotle’s claim about the connection of thinking with phantasms as universally valid. After all, it is even plausible that Aristotle was himself implicitly reacting against Plato’s view in Republic VI (510 C–511 C) that thinking – νόησις contrary to διάνοια – is without images. However, even if their Platonic perspective is undeniable, the ancient commentators also have, as I hope to show, valuable arguments to restrict Aristotle’s claim to some forms of knowledge. In this contribution I will discuss the views of four commentators of late antiquity: Themistius, Ammonius (as reported by Philoponus), John Philoponus (in his lectures as reported by a student), and Priscian of Lydia (Pseudo-Simplicius). But before I turn to the commentators I have to recall briefly Plotinus, who was himself an intensive reader of the Aristotelian treatise On the Soul, but interpreted it in his own manner. [Introduction, pp. 187 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SmsiEQFvYEh7kIN |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1170","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1170,"authors_free":[{"id":1746,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, C.","free_first_name":"C.","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2507,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis","main_title":{"title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis"},"abstract":"There is undoubtedly a Platonic\r\nmotivation in the commentators\u2019 refusal to accept Aristotle\u2019s claim about the\r\nconnection of thinking with phantasms as universally valid. After all, it is even plausible that Aristotle was himself implicitly reacting against Plato\u2019s view in Republic VI (510 C\u2013511 C) that thinking \u2013 \u03bd\u1f79\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 contrary to\r\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f71\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u2013 is without images. However, even if their Platonic perspective is undeniable, the ancient commentators also have, as I hope to show, valuable\r\narguments to restrict Aristotle\u2019s claim to some forms of knowledge.\r\nIn this contribution I will discuss the views of four commentators of late antiquity: Themistius, Ammonius (as reported by Philoponus), John Philoponus (in his lectures as reported by a student), and Priscian of Lydia (Pseudo-Simplicius). But before I turn to the commentators I have to recall briefly Plotinus, who was himself an intensive reader of the Aristotelian treatise On the Soul, but interpreted it in his own manner. [Introduction, pp. 187 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SmsiEQFvYEh7kIN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1170,"section_of":289,"pages":"185-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T1HDXUI5JWMgcGy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity |
| Pages | 569-579 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A. |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristotle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Simplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the Enchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good working picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0vKTn6WTHOuGWRm |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2357,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2368,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2369,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0vKTn6WTHOuGWRm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| 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":[2018]}
| Title | Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval |
| Volume | 43 |
| Pages | 13-39 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ lost commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2018 |
| Publication Place | Bologna |
| Publisher | Diogene |
| Series | Axiothéa |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar |
| Translator(s) |
| Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, è offerto in onore di Néstor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale “Socratica IV” a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1366","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1366,"authors_free":[{"id":2052,"entry_id":1366,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2053,"entry_id":1366,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Spangenberg","free_last_name":"Pilar","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","main_title":{"title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero"},"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | William of Moerbeke’s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero |
| Pages | 213-230 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kraus, Manfred |
| Editor(s) | Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar |
| Translator(s) |
| Although Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s treatise De cáelo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De Cáelo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke’s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius’ commentary and Moerbeke’s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke’s renderings of the seven direct quotations of passages from Parmenides exhibited in In De Cáelo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HEupyW7x7XP3WK5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"389","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":389,"authors_free":[{"id":510,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":221,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kraus, Manfred","free_first_name":"Manfred","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":221,"first_name":"Manfred","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1069796840","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2109,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2110,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Pilar","free_last_name":"Spangenberg","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Although Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s treatise De c\u00e1elo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De C\u00e1elo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke\u2019s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius\u2019 commentary and Moerbeke\u2019s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke\u2019s renderings of the seven direct quotations of \r\npassages from Parmenides exhibited in In De C\u00e1elo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HEupyW7x7XP3WK5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":221,"full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":389,"section_of":1366,"pages":"213-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pulpito_Spangenberg2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":389,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Axiothea","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"213-230"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Publication Place | Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Brill's companions to classical reception |
| Volume | 13 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A. |
| Translator(s) |
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: ‘Early Developments in Reception’ (four chapters); ‘Early Imperial Reception’ (nine chapters); and ‘Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism’ (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":259,"authors_free":[{"id":1822,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2370,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2371,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2372,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Danielle A. ","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"]}
| Title | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Publication Place | Leiden |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Brill's Companions to Classical Reception |
| Volume | 20 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Xenophontos, Sophia , Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/E0eFuPTTIEjNhZC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1422","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1422,"authors_free":[{"id":2432,"entry_id":1422,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":480,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","free_first_name":"Sophia","free_last_name":"Xenophontos","norm_person":{"id":480,"first_name":"Sophia","last_name":"Xenophontos","full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1112475400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2433,"entry_id":1422,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":481,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","free_first_name":"Aikaterini","free_last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","norm_person":{"id":481,"first_name":"Aikaterini","last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036691888","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E0eFuPTTIEjNhZC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":480,"full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":481,"full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1422,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Companions to Classical Reception","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch"]}
| Title | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 6 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Harry, Chelsea C. , Habash, Justin |
| Translator(s) |
In Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought, contributions by GottfriedHeinemann, Andrew Gregory, Justin Habash, Daniel W. Graham,Oliver Primavesi, Owen Goldin, Omar D. Álvarez Salas, ChristopherKurfess, Dirk L. Couprie, Tiberiu Popa, Timothy J. Crowley, LilianaCarolina Sánchez Castro, Iakovos Vasiliou, Barbara Sattler, Rosemary Wright, and a foreword by Patricia Curd explore the influences of early Greek science (6-4th c. BCE) on thephilosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, and the Hippocratics. Rather than presenting an unified narrative, the volume supports various ways to understand the development of the concept of nature, the emergence of science, and the historical context of topics such as elements, principles, soul, organization, causation,purpose, and cosmos in ancient Greek philosophy. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LNaJKXNNYWnvhSe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1458","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1458,"authors_free":[{"id":2501,"entry_id":1458,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":511,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Harry, Chelsea C.","free_first_name":"Chelsea C.","free_last_name":"Harry","norm_person":{"id":511,"first_name":"Chelsea C.","last_name":"Harry","full_name":"Harry, Chelsea C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1073135276","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2502,"entry_id":1458,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":512,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Habash, Justin\u202f","free_first_name":"Justin\u202f","free_last_name":"Habash","norm_person":{"id":512,"first_name":"Justin","last_name":"Habash","full_name":"Habash, Justin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1232220795","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought"},"abstract":"In Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought, contributions by GottfriedHeinemann, Andrew Gregory, Justin Habash, Daniel W. Graham,Oliver Primavesi, Owen Goldin, Omar D. \u00c1lvarez Salas, ChristopherKurfess, Dirk L. Couprie, Tiberiu Popa, Timothy J. Crowley, LilianaCarolina S\u00e1nchez Castro, Iakovos Vasiliou, Barbara Sattler, Rosemary Wright, and a foreword by Patricia Curd explore the influences of early Greek science (6-4th c. BCE) on thephilosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, and the Hippocratics. Rather than presenting an unified narrative, the volume supports various ways to understand the development of the concept of nature, the emergence of science, and the historical context of topics such as elements, principles, soul, organization, causation,purpose, and cosmos in ancient Greek philosophy. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LNaJKXNNYWnvhSe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":511,"full_name":"Harry, Chelsea C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":512,"full_name":"Habash, Justin","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1458,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought"]}
| Title | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
| Translator(s) |
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle’s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"304","_score":null,"_source":{"id":304,"authors_free":[{"id":379,"entry_id":304,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity"]}
| Title | Categories and Subcategories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Anuario Filosófico |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 395-411 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tegtmeier, Erwin |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle’s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle’s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"471","_score":null,"_source":{"id":471,"authors_free":[{"id":636,"entry_id":471,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":332,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","free_first_name":"Erwin","free_last_name":"Tegtmeier","norm_person":{"id":332,"first_name":"Erwin","last_name":"Tegtmeier","full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172413745","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Categories and Subcategories","main_title":{"title":"Categories and Subcategories"},"abstract":"Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle\u2019s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle\u2019s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":332,"full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":471,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anuario Filos\u00f3fico","volume":"47","issue":"2","pages":"395-411"}},"sort":["Categories and Subcategories"]}
| Title | Categories. Histories and Perspectives |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2017 |
| Publication Place | Hildesheim, Zurich, New York |
| Publisher | Georg Olms Verlag |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2am9O0Ljwyc5hy1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1408","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1408,"authors_free":[{"id":2201,"entry_id":1408,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2202,"entry_id":1408,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives","main_title":{"title":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2017","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2am9O0Ljwyc5hy1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"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":{"id":1408,"pubplace":"Hildesheim, Zurich, New York","publisher":"Georg Olms Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Categories. Histories and Perspectives"]}
| Title | Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5 |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2017 |
| Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
| Pages | 157-179 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
| Translator(s) |
This contribution by Riccardo Chiaradonna aims to reconstruct the reading of Aristotle's Categories 5 by Alexander of Aphrodisias within the context of his exegesis of the treatise. Chiaradonna argues that Alexander was responding to an older particularist or extensionalist reading of the Categories, likely developed by Boethus of Sidon, and that Alexander's interpretation retains certain aspects of Boethus' exegesis while also integrating the ontology of the Categories with that of Aristotle's Metaphysics. Chiaradonna focuses on a well-known section of Simplicius' commentary on the Categories, in which Simplicius opposes three partial interpretations of the subject (ousia) of the Categories and defends a tripartite doctrine of the subject that he attributes to Boethus and Alexander. Chiaradonna concludes that Alexander's reading of the Categories is essentialist or intensionalist, and that it aims to integrate the semantics of the treatise with his ontology of immanent natures. He argues that Alexander viewed individuals as first substances by nature rather than only for us, and that his semantic reading of the Categories is closely tied to his essentialist ontology. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tBqsizzKQtMZ1yZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1270","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1270,"authors_free":[{"id":1861,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2045,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2046,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"},"abstract":"This contribution by Riccardo Chiaradonna aims to reconstruct the reading of Aristotle's Categories 5 by Alexander of Aphrodisias within the context of his exegesis of the treatise. Chiaradonna argues that Alexander was responding to an older particularist or extensionalist reading of the Categories, likely developed by Boethus of Sidon, and that Alexander's interpretation retains certain aspects of Boethus' exegesis while also integrating the ontology of the Categories with that of Aristotle's Metaphysics. Chiaradonna focuses on a well-known section of Simplicius' commentary on the Categories, in which Simplicius opposes three partial interpretations of the subject (ousia) of the Categories and defends a tripartite doctrine of the subject that he attributes to Boethus and Alexander. Chiaradonna concludes that Alexander's reading of the Categories is essentialist or intensionalist, and that it aims to integrate the semantics of the treatise with his ontology of immanent natures. He argues that Alexander viewed individuals as first substances by nature rather than only for us, and that his semantic reading of the Categories is closely tied to his essentialist ontology. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tBqsizzKQtMZ1yZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1270,"section_of":273,"pages":"157-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf etudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire a la Metaphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, ecrit au tournant des IIe et IIIe siecles. Elles ont ete suscitees par le colloque international Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la metaphysique aristotelicienne, tenu en l'Universite Paris1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, les 22-24 Juin 2015. La question de la reception en est le sujet: reception de la Metaphysique par Alexandre, reception par la tradition ulterieure de son exegese. Le commentaire d'Alexandre fixe, en effet, la comprehension du texte d'Aristote a partir du IIIe siecle; il servira de reference a toutes les interpretations ulterieures, neoplatoniciennes, arabes et latines. Ces etudes mettent en evidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premiere et meme ethique, etablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question maximalement disputee est celle de l'usage des Categories dans le commentaire a la Metaphysique. Les neuf etudes ont pour auteurs: Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6qWkzhvSbAtdjg7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"]}
| Title | Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Publication Place | Cambridge |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian |
| Translator(s) |
Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kmaeEwrlY6zOmkp |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"155","_score":null,"_source":{"id":155,"authors_free":[{"id":1857,"entry_id":155,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1858,"entry_id":155,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history.","btype":4,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kmaeEwrlY6zOmkp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity"]}
| Title | City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Publication Place | Berkeley – London – Los Angeles |
| Publisher | University of California Press |
| Series | The Joan Palevsky imprint in classical literature 41 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Watts, E. J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This lively and wide-ranging study of the men and ideas of late antique education explores the intellectual and doctrinal milieux in the two great cities of Athens and Alexandria from the second to the sixth centuries to shed new light on the interaction between the pagan cultural legacy and Christianity. While previous scholarship has seen Christian reactions to pagan educational culture as the product of an empire-wide process of development, Edward J. Watts crafts two narratives that reveal how differently education was shaped by the local power structures and urban contexts of each city. Touching on the careers of Herodes Atticus, Proclus, Damascius, Ammonius Saccas, Origen, Hypatia, and Olympiodorus; and events including the Herulian sack of Athens, the closing of the Athenian Neoplatonic school under Justinian, the rise of Arian Christianity, and the sack of the Serapeum, he shows that by the sixth century, Athens and Alexandria had two distinct, locally determined, approaches to pagan teaching that had their roots in the unique historical relationships between city and school. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MZ2J2AiwmdLSj6P |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":193,"authors_free":[{"id":249,"entry_id":193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, E. J.","free_first_name":"E. J.","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria","main_title":{"title":"City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria"},"abstract":"This lively and wide-ranging study of the men and ideas of late antique education explores the intellectual and doctrinal milieux in the two great cities of Athens and Alexandria from the second to the sixth centuries to shed new light on the interaction between the pagan cultural legacy and Christianity. While previous scholarship has seen Christian reactions to pagan educational culture as the product of an empire-wide process of development, Edward J. Watts crafts two narratives that reveal how differently education was shaped by the local power structures and urban contexts of each city. Touching on the careers of Herodes Atticus, Proclus, Damascius, Ammonius Saccas, Origen, Hypatia, and Olympiodorus; and events including the Herulian sack of Athens, the closing of the Athenian Neoplatonic school under Justinian, the rise of Arian Christianity, and the sack of the Serapeum, he shows that by the sixth century, Athens and Alexandria had two distinct, locally determined, approaches to pagan teaching that had their roots in the unique historical relationships between city and school.","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MZ2J2AiwmdLSj6P","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":193,"pubplace":"Berkeley \u2013 London \u2013 Los Angeles","publisher":"University of California Press","series":"The Joan Palevsky imprint in classical literature 41","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria"]}
| Title | Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Publication Place | Oxford |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher |
| Translator(s) |
This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EkOQQJjDcWc45U3 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"292","_score":null,"_source":{"id":292,"authors_free":[{"id":2192,"entry_id":292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":384,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kraus, Christina S. ","free_first_name":"Christina S.","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":384,"first_name":"Christina S.","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1067516212","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2193,"entry_id":292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":385,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stray, Christopher","free_first_name":"Christopher","free_last_name":"Stray","norm_person":{"id":385,"first_name":"Christopher","last_name":"Stray","full_name":"Stray, Christopher","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135638674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre","main_title":{"title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre"},"abstract":"This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.","btype":4,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EkOQQJjDcWc45U3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":384,"full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":385,"full_name":"Stray, Christopher","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":292,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre"]}