| 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 | Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (Neue Folge) |
| Volume | 160 |
| Pages | 161-193 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Němec, Václav |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The article is concerned with the problem of the genus of being in the Neo-Platonism. Especially, it focuses on Pierre Hadot’s hypothesis according to which some Neo-Platonic authors, such as Porphyry, and under his influence Marius Victorinus and Dexippus, presupposed a common genus of being or substance in Aristotelian sense encompassing various ontological levels of Platonic universe, namely the intelligible, and sensible being or substance. A comprehensive analysis of relevant texts of Neo-Platonic in |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NFcedkiydJjOCd4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1403","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1403,"authors_free":[{"id":2188,"entry_id":1403,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":380,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","free_first_name":"V\u00e1clav","free_last_name":"N\u011bmec","norm_person":{"id":380,"first_name":"V\u00e1clav","last_name":"N\u011bmec","full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121953627X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"The article is concerned with the problem of the genus of being in the Neo-Platonism. Especially, it focuses on Pierre Hadot\u2019s hypothesis according to which some Neo-Platonic authors, such as Porphyry, and under his influence Marius Victorinus and Dexippus, presupposed a common genus of being or substance in Aristotelian sense encompassing various ontological levels of Platonic universe, namely the intelligible, and sensible being or substance. A comprehensive analysis of relevant texts of Neo-Platonic in","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NFcedkiydJjOCd4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":380,"full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1403,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie (Neue Folge)","volume":"160","issue":"","pages":"161-193"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques |
| Volume | 101 |
| Pages | 569-584 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the "camus" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1pNKYrIvZMIsMEt |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the \"camus\" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1pNKYrIvZMIsMEt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Méthexis |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 188-198 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoine, Pieter d’ |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The text discusses Simplicius' harmonizing approach towards the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, particularly focusing on the famous thesis of the supposed 'symphony' or 'harmony' between the two ancient philosophers. Simplicius is seen as a staunch supporter of this thesis, urging readers not to be misled by apparent disagreements between Plato and Aristotle. Instead, Simplicius encourages readers to look beyond the surface level of their words and uncover the fundamental agreement that lies beneath. The book by Ivan Licciardi delves into Simplicius' approach and shows that his harmonizing attitude is not limited to just Plato and Aristotle but extends to almost the entire pre-Socratic philosophy. This broader perspective stems from Simplicius' desire to defend the profound unity of ancient pagan philosophical traditions, possibly in response to the rise of Christianity. One central focus of the book is Simplicius' extensive treatment of Parmenides in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Parmenides is considered a crucial figure in Greek thought, and Simplicius views him as a theoretical milestone in which Plato's philosophy, seeking ultimate truth, is exemplified. Thus, Simplicius interrupts his commentary on Aristotle to discuss Parmenides in detail. Simplicius is not merely a transmitter of Parmenidean thought; rather, he interprets Parmenides to showcase the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition under the influence of Neoplatonism. The book explores Simplicius as an independent philosopher, historian, and interpreter of Eleatic thought, rather than merely a conduit for transmitting Parmenides' ideas. This approach places Simplicius within the context of late antique Neoplatonism, acknowledging the pivotal role played by late Platonists in shaping the transformation of ancient thought, as it was received by medieval and early modern thinkers. The objective of the book is to comprehensively discuss how Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, treated Parmenides, examining Simplicius' interpretation and rendering of Parmenides instrumental in demonstrating the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition, under the auspices of Neoplatonism. In summary, the book offers an in-depth exploration of Simplicius' approach to harmonizing ancient philosophical doctrines, focusing on his interpretation of Parmenides and his broader role in late antique Neoplatonism. By delving into Simplicius' philosophical agenda, the book contributes to the study of late ancient Platonism, shedding light on the transformative period in the history of Western thought. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IkP88mCNlmfYiTe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1484","_score":null,"_ignored":["main_title.title.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1484,"authors_free":[{"id":2569,"entry_id":1484,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter d\u2019","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)","main_title":{"title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"},"abstract":"The text discusses Simplicius' harmonizing approach towards the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, particularly focusing on the famous thesis of the supposed 'symphony' or 'harmony' between the two ancient philosophers. Simplicius is seen as a staunch supporter of this thesis, urging readers not to be misled by apparent disagreements between Plato and Aristotle. Instead, Simplicius encourages readers to look beyond the surface level of their words and uncover the fundamental agreement that lies beneath. The book by Ivan Licciardi delves into Simplicius' approach and shows that his harmonizing attitude is not limited to just Plato and Aristotle but extends to almost the entire pre-Socratic philosophy. This broader perspective stems from Simplicius' desire to defend the profound unity of ancient pagan philosophical traditions, possibly in response to the rise of Christianity. One central focus of the book is Simplicius' extensive treatment of Parmenides in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Parmenides is considered a crucial figure in Greek thought, and Simplicius views him as a theoretical milestone in which Plato's philosophy, seeking ultimate truth, is exemplified. Thus, Simplicius interrupts his commentary on Aristotle to discuss Parmenides in detail. Simplicius is not merely a transmitter of Parmenidean thought; rather, he interprets Parmenides to showcase the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition under the influence of Neoplatonism. The book explores Simplicius as an independent philosopher, historian, and interpreter of Eleatic thought, rather than merely a conduit for transmitting Parmenides' ideas. This approach places Simplicius within the context of late antique Neoplatonism, acknowledging the pivotal role played by late Platonists in shaping the transformation of ancient thought, as it was received by medieval and early modern thinkers. The objective of the book is to comprehensively discuss how Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, treated Parmenides, examining Simplicius' interpretation and rendering of Parmenides instrumental in demonstrating the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition, under the auspices of Neoplatonism. In summary, the book offers an in-depth exploration of Simplicius' approach to harmonizing ancient philosophical doctrines, focusing on his interpretation of Parmenides and his broader role in late antique Neoplatonism. By delving into Simplicius' philosophical agenda, the book contributes to the study of late ancient Platonism, shedding light on the transformative period in the history of Western thought. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IkP88mCNlmfYiTe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"29","issue":"1","pages":"188-198"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Il male come "privazione". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 8 |
| Pages | 391-408 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Cardullo, R. Loredana |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NA6ptk7HT3rj9i3 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1216","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1216,"authors_free":[{"id":1798,"entry_id":1216,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il male come \"privazione\". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia","main_title":{"title":"Il male come \"privazione\". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia"},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato\u2019s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., \u201cparasitic\u201d or \u201ccollateral\u201d existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the \u201cprivative\u201d role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NA6ptk7HT3rj9i3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1216,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"PEITHO \/ EXAMINA ANTIQUA","volume":"1","issue":"8","pages":"391-408"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 6 |
| Pages | 294-301 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oNzrcy2efzDdXD4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1410","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1410,"authors_free":[{"id":2205,"entry_id":1410,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"D'Ancona Costa","free_last_name":"Cristina","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy","main_title":{"title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oNzrcy2efzDdXD4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1410,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"294-301"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Athenaeum |
| Volume | 104 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 186-200 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper I will explain some passages of Simplicius, in Phys. 1, in which the Commentator discusses the Aristotelian expression pephyke de ek tôn gvorimoteron (Phys. 1.1, 184a. 16). Here Simplicius distinguishes ta gnorimotera from to autopiston, such as the definitions and the immediate premises, and from the dianoetic knowledge, which is syllogistic and demonstrative. Notwithstanding the topic o f these passages is epistemological, here the Commentator, through a syllogism in which there is an evident reminiscence o f Plato’s Timaeus, cites the beauty o f the universe as an initial step to raise to the goodness o f die Demiurge. After an articulated investigation (in which are involved, as well, Aristotle’s Rhetoric and above all P osteriorA nalytics), Simplicius concludes that to kalon has the same statute of gnorimoteron hemîn (Arise. Phys. 1.1.184a.l6). The purpose o f the Commentator seems that to conciliate Plato and Aristotle, and the result is an original and creative, but at the same rime exact and careful, way to do the exegesis of Aristotle’s Physics. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BsvJUoX42v87hvG |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"405","_score":null,"_source":{"id":405,"authors_free":[{"id":544,"entry_id":405,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio"},"abstract":"In this paper I will explain some passages of Simplicius, in Phys. 1, in which the Commentator discusses the Aristotelian expression pephyke de ek t\u00f4n gvorimoteron (Phys. 1.1, 184a. 16). Here Simplicius distinguishes ta gnorimotera from to autopiston, such as the def\u00adinitions and the immediate premises, and from the dianoetic knowledge, which is syllogistic and demonstrative. Notwithstanding the topic o f these passages is epistemological, here the Com\u00admentator, through a syllogism in which there is an evident reminiscence o f Plato\u2019s Timaeus, cites the beauty o f the universe as an initial step to raise to the goodness o f die Demiurge. After an articulated investigation (in which are involved, as well, Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric and above all P osteriorA nalytics), Simplicius concludes that to kalon has the same statute of gnorimoteron hem\u00een (Arise. Phys. 1.1.184a.l6). The purpose o f the Commentator seems that to conciliate Plato and Aristotle, and the result is an original and creative, but at the same rime exact and careful, way to do the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BsvJUoX42v87hvG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":405,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Athenaeum","volume":"104","issue":"1","pages":"186-200"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | The notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in Simplicius' discussion of quality |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 27 |
| Pages | 65-83 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper, I will focus on the meaning and function of epitêdeiotês in Simplicius and I will argue, based on an analysis of different passages of chapter 8 of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, that epitêdeiotês is not a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, in Simplicius either. However, it will become apparent that Simplicius does not make any effort to clearly distinguish epitêdeiotês from dynamis, an aspect that might have led Todd to assume that epitêdeiotês is a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis. The fact that Simplicius does not explicitly distinguish epitêdeiotês from dynamis does, however, not necessarily imply that he does not make anydistinctions between the two notions. [Introduction, p. 67] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iAt7auDa0df2ob0 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1150","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1150,"authors_free":[{"id":1725,"entry_id":1150,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality","main_title":{"title":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality"},"abstract":"In this paper, I will focus on the meaning and function of epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas in Simplicius and I will argue, based on an analysis of different passages of chapter 8 of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, that epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas is not a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, in Simplicius either. \r\nHowever, it will become apparent that Simplicius does not make any effort to clearly distinguish epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas from dynamis, an aspect that might have led Todd to assume that epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas is a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis. The fact that Simplicius does not explicitly distinguish epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas from dynamis does, however, not necessarily imply that he does not make anydistinctions between the two notions. [Introduction, p. 67]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iAt7auDa0df2ob0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1150,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"27","issue":"","pages":"65-83"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Méthexis |
| Volume | 28 |
| Pages | 111-140 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same commentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the assumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MaVlDWOYkfo0ZCx |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"387","_score":null,"_source":{"id":387,"authors_free":[{"id":506,"entry_id":387,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified"},"abstract":"Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same com\u00admentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the as\u00adsumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MaVlDWOYkfo0ZCx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":387,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"28","issue":"","pages":"111-140"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 50 |
| Pages | 237-288 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Coope, Ursula |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Humans are accountable for what they do and believe in a way that other animals are not. T h e Stoics held that this is because humans are rational, and in particular because they have the capacity for rational assent. But how exactly does the capacity for rational assent explain accountability? O ur Stoic sources do not explicitly answer this question, but I argue that they suggest the following view. Humans are responsible for assenting (and withholding as sent) just because o f the way in which the capacity for assent is reason-responsive: you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, and if you know whether or not you should be assenting, you can be guided by this knowledge in either assenting or withholding assent.This view, however, raises certain further questions. What is it about the nature o f our capacity for assent that enables it to be reason-responsive in a way that other psychic capacities are not? Why can one assent for a reason, but not have at* impression of something's being the case for a reason? I argue that a basis for answering these questions can be found in a perhaps surprising source: ps.-Simplicius' sixth-century commentary on Aristotle's De anima. Ps.-Simplicius draws on the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain what is distinctive about the rational capacity for assent. His account, I claim, provides a basis for explaining the distinctively reason-responsive nature of our capacity for assent. [Introduction, p. 287] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dvgVyUDHfWVEDyD |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1276","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1276,"authors_free":[{"id":1865,"entry_id":1276,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":53,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coope, Ursula","free_first_name":"Ursula","free_last_name":"Coope","norm_person":{"id":53,"first_name":"Ursula","last_name":"Coope","full_name":"Coope, Ursula","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078072639","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics","main_title":{"title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics"},"abstract":"Humans are accountable for what they do and believe in a way that other animals are not. T h e Stoics held that this is because hu\u00admans are rational, and in particular because they have the capacity for rational assent. But how exactly does the capacity for rational assent explain accountability? O ur Stoic sources do not explicitly answer this question, but I argue that they suggest the following view. Humans are responsible for assenting (and withholding as\u00ad\r\nsent) just because o f the way in which the capacity for assent is \r\nreason-responsive: you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, \r\nand if you know whether or not you should be assenting, you can be guided by this knowledge in either assenting or withholding assent.This view, however, raises certain further questions. What is it about the nature o f our capacity for assent that enables it to be reason-responsive in a way that other psychic capacities are not? Why can one assent for a reason, but not have at* impression of something's being the case for a reason? I argue that a basis for answering these questions can be found in a perhaps surprising source: ps.-Simplicius' sixth-century commentary on Aristotle's De anima. Ps.-Simplicius draws on the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain what is distinctive about the rational \r\ncapacity for assent. His account, I claim, provides a basis for explaining the distinctively reason-responsive nature of our capacity for assent. [Introduction, p. 287]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dvgVyUDHfWVEDyD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":53,"full_name":"Coope, Ursula","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1276,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"237-288"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Addenda Eudemea |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Journal | Leeds International Classical Studies |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-28 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eI5Vl8PkHDDBXGU |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1119","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1119,"authors_free":[{"id":1692,"entry_id":1119,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addenda Eudemea","main_title":{"title":"Addenda Eudemea"},"abstract":"This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eI5Vl8PkHDDBXGU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1119,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Leeds International Classical Studies","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"1-28"}},"sort":["Addenda Eudemea"]}
| Title | Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2008 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chase, Michael |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The text discusses Albert the Great's arguments in his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge, focusing on the second of the three questions Porphyry posed about universals: whether they are corporeal or incorporeal. Albert attributes the idea of the separate existence of lines and surfaces in mathematical bodies to Plato. This attribution is problematic, but it is not absurd to suggest that Plato taught such doctrines, according to the Tübingen School's work on Plato's unwritten teachings. The text suggests that Albert's presentation of Plato's philosophy reflects his reliance on difficult translations of Aristotle and his commentators, rather than direct engagement with Plato's dialogues. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xQTHT9jCvKbdAcS |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1259,"authors_free":[{"id":1838,"entry_id":1259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)","main_title":{"title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)"},"abstract":"The text discusses Albert the Great's arguments in his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge, focusing on the second of the three questions Porphyry posed about universals: whether they are corporeal or incorporeal. Albert attributes the idea of the separate existence of lines and surfaces in mathematical bodies to Plato. This attribution is problematic, but it is not absurd to suggest that Plato taught such doctrines, according to the T\u00fcbingen School's work on Plato's unwritten teachings. The text suggests that Albert's presentation of Plato's philosophy reflects his reliance on difficult translations of Aristotle and his commentators, rather than direct engagement with Plato's dialogues. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xQTHT9jCvKbdAcS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)"]}
| Title | Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 190-205 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
A number of features of the doctrine of Alexander of Aphrodisias on heavenly motions are beyond reasonable doubt. First and foremost of these is that he identified the nature of the heavenly spheres with their soul, thereby he could entirely collapse natural motion with voluntary motion into one in their case. Moreover the celestial element, which Alexander tends to call theion sôma, divine body is removed from the components of the everchanging sublunary world to the extent that it can be a legitimate question whether the substrate of celestial bodies can be called matter, and Alexander can refer to perishable entities as evIua, material in contrast to this sublime element. After identifying the contribution of the nature of the celestial spheres with that of their soul, Alexander follows Aristotle in setting out a celestial hierarchy, on top of which there is or there are the separate unmoved mover(s), which move(s) by being object(s) of striving and desire for the less perfect entities of the heavens. This much seems to be firmly settled. A number of further issues, however, call for detailed examination. In this paper first I set out to clarify the contributions of the striving of the different celestial spheres, then I turn to describing the interaction between the various motions of the celestial system, and I discuss whether the theory Alexander propounded could have been a fundamental revision, or rather an alternative exposition of the original, Aristotelian celestial theory deploying homocentric spheres. [Introduction, pp. 190 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qoA5caxGCjSIqQm |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1082","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1082,"authors_free":[{"id":1637,"entry_id":1082,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M. ","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M. ","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions"},"abstract":"A number of features of the doctrine of Alexander of Aphrodisias on heavenly motions are beyond reasonable doubt. First and foremost of these is \r\nthat he identified the nature of the heavenly spheres with their soul, thereby he could entirely collapse natural motion with voluntary motion into one in their case. Moreover the celestial element, which Alexander tends to call theion s\u00f4ma, divine body is removed from the components of \r\nthe everchanging sublunary world to the extent that it can be a legitimate question whether the substrate of celestial bodies can be called matter, and Alexander can refer to perishable entities as evIua, material in contrast to this sublime element. After identifying the contribution of the nature of the celestial spheres with that of their soul, Alexander follows \r\nAristotle in setting out a celestial hierarchy, on top of which there is or there are the separate unmoved mover(s), which move(s) by being object(s) of striving and desire for the less perfect entities of the heavens. This much seems to be firmly settled. A number of further issues, however, call for detailed examination. In this paper first I set out to clarify the contributions of the striving of the different celestial spheres, then I turn to describing the interaction between the various motions of the celestial system, and I discuss whether the theory Alexander propounded could have been a fundamental revision, or rather an alternative exposition of the original, Aristotelian celestial theory deploying homocentric spheres. [Introduction, pp. 190 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qoA5caxGCjSIqQm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1082,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"42","issue":"2","pages":"190-205"}},"sort":["Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions"]}
| Title | Alexander on Physics 2.9 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 19-30 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius’s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included - and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On coming-to-be and passing-away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus’s commentary thereon, and with Alexander’s discussion in some of the Quaestiones\ the present paper, with Simplicius’s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9; Alexander’s GC commentary, and the relevant part of his Physics commentary, are lost. [Introduction, p. 19] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Uk1uUvOIUNKK2lk |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1172","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1172,"authors_free":[{"id":1747,"entry_id":1172,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9","main_title":{"title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9"},"abstract":"I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius\u2019s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included - and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On coming-to-be and passing-away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus\u2019s commentary thereon, and with Alexander\u2019s discussion in some of the Quaestiones\\ the present paper, with Simplicius\u2019s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9; Alexander\u2019s GC commentary, \r\nand the relevant part of his Physics commentary, are lost. [Introduction, p. 19]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Uk1uUvOIUNKK2lk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1172,"section_of":1171,"pages":"19-30","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1172,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"19-30"}},"sort":["Alexander on Physics 2.9"]}
| Title | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la « magna quaestio ». Rôle et indépendance des scholies dans la tradition byzantine du corpus aristotélicien |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | Les Études Classiques |
| Volume | 63 |
| Pages | 295–351 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S5o83BIxmzevo8X |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1062","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1062,"authors_free":[{"id":1612,"entry_id":1062,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la \u00ab magna quaestio \u00bb. R\u00f4le et ind\u00e9pendance des scholies dans la tradition byzantine du corpus aristot\u00e9licien","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la \u00ab magna quaestio \u00bb. R\u00f4le et ind\u00e9pendance des scholies dans la tradition byzantine du corpus aristot\u00e9licien"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S5o83BIxmzevo8X","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1062,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"63","issue":"","pages":"295\u2013351"}},"sort":["Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la \u00ab magna quaestio \u00bb. R\u00f4le et ind\u00e9pendance des scholies dans la tradition byzantine du corpus aristot\u00e9licien"]}
| Title | Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1993 |
| Journal | Illinois Classical Studies |
| Volume | 18 |
| Pages | 307-325 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Any discussion of Greek Alexandria may properly take its starting point from the work of P. M. Fraser, even if only to dissent from it. In the preface to Ptolemaic Alexandria Fraser observes that philosophy was one of the “items” that “were not effectively transplanted to Alexandria.”1 In his chapter on philosophy, talking of the establishment of the main philosophical schools at Athens, Fraser writes that it “remained the centre of philosophical studies down to the closing of the schools by Justinian in A.D. 563.”2 The first of these statements is near enough the truth, since the Alexandria of the Ptolemies was not distinguished in philosophy as ifwas in literature or science, though even then some important things happened during that period too. But the implication that this situation continued during the Roman and early Byzantine periods is misleading, and by the end of the period simply false.3 The purpose of this paper is to examine some aspects of the considerable contribution that Alexandria made to the philosophical tradition that continued into the Islamic and Christian middle ages and beyond, and to show that it may lay claim to have been at least equal to that of Athens itself. [Introduction, p. 307] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LDONxIQ4990ZfXQ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"898","_score":null,"_source":{"id":898,"authors_free":[{"id":1326,"entry_id":898,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity"},"abstract":"Any discussion of Greek Alexandria may properly take its starting point \r\nfrom the work of P. M. Fraser, even if only to dissent from it. In the preface \r\nto Ptolemaic Alexandria Fraser observes that philosophy was one of the \r\n\u201citems\u201d that \u201cwere not effectively transplanted to Alexandria.\u201d1 In his \r\nchapter on philosophy, talking of the establishment of the main \r\nphilosophical schools at Athens, Fraser writes that it \u201cremained the centre of \r\nphilosophical studies down to the closing of the schools by Justinian in A.D. \r\n563.\u201d2 The first of these statements is near enough the truth, since the \r\nAlexandria of the Ptolemies was not distinguished in philosophy as ifwas in \r\nliterature or science, though even then some important things happened \r\nduring that period too. But the implication that this situation continued \r\nduring the Roman and early Byzantine periods is misleading, and by the end \r\nof the period simply false.3 The purpose of this paper is to examine some \r\naspects of the considerable contribution that Alexandria made to the \r\nphilosophical tradition that continued into the Islamic and Christian middle \r\nages and beyond, and to show that it may lay claim to have been at least \r\nequal to that of Athens itself. [Introduction, p. 307]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LDONxIQ4990ZfXQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":898,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"307-325"}},"sort":["Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity"]}
| Title | All Voids Large and Small, Being a Discussion of Place and Void in Strato of Lampsacus's Matter Theory |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1999 |
| Journal | Apeiron. A journal for ancient philosophy and science |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1–36 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Lehoux, Daryn |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Through an analysis of the extant testimonia, I shall attempt to establish Strato's theory of place, ultimately favouring Simplicius's account over that of Stobaeus. The arguments and issues involved, however, will take us through a wide variety of the possible sources for Strato and an analysis of their ideas and objectives in providing their evidence. I argue, contra Furley and Berryman, that there is good reason to suppose that Strato held a theory of horror vacui qua explanans, possibly having bor rowed it from some earlier source, and that he did in fact create the microvoid theory. These separate strands tie together into a coherent system that is attributable to Strato based on evidence that is sometimes direct and sometimes circumstantial. Thus Strato will be seen to be breaking away (to a certain extent) from a strictly Aristotelian position, perhaps following Theophrastus's lead. [Introduction, pp. 2 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lKuOLug45JfWOzo |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1118","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1118,"authors_free":[{"id":1690,"entry_id":1118,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":244,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lehoux, Daryn","free_first_name":"Daryn","free_last_name":"Lehoux","norm_person":{"id":244,"first_name":"Daryn","last_name":"Lehoux","full_name":"Lehoux, Daryn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139306099","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"All Voids Large and Small, Being a Discussion of Place and Void in Strato of Lampsacus's Matter Theory","main_title":{"title":"All Voids Large and Small, Being a Discussion of Place and Void in Strato of Lampsacus's Matter Theory"},"abstract":"Through an analysis of the extant testimonia, I shall attempt to estab\u00adlish Strato's theory of place, ultimately favouring Simplicius's account over that of Stobaeus. The arguments and issues involved, however, will take us through a wide variety of the possible sources for Strato and an analysis of their ideas and objectives in providing their evidence. I argue, \r\ncontra Furley and Berryman, that there is good reason to suppose that Strato held a theory of horror vacui qua explanans, possibly having bor\u00ad\r\nrowed it from some earlier source, and that he did in fact create the microvoid theory. These separate strands tie together into a coherent \r\nsystem that is attributable to Strato based on evidence that is sometimes direct and sometimes circumstantial. Thus Strato will be seen to be breaking away (to a certain extent) from a strictly Aristotelian position, perhaps following Theophrastus's lead. [Introduction, pp. 2 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lKuOLug45JfWOzo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":244,"full_name":"Lehoux, Daryn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1118,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Apeiron. A journal for ancient philosophy and science","volume":"32","issue":"1","pages":"1\u201336"}},"sort":["All Voids Large and Small, Being a Discussion of Place and Void in Strato of Lampsacus's Matter Theory"]}
| Title | Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Journal | Vivarium |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 137-173 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kukkonen, Taneli |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's ratio- nale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments "through the impossible"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers offered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. We shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of Aristotle's intentions slowly emerges. [p. 141] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VugBKbHjOyRL2pO |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"734","_score":null,"_source":{"id":734,"authors_free":[{"id":1097,"entry_id":734,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":224,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","free_first_name":"Taneli","free_last_name":"Kukkonen","norm_person":{"id":224,"first_name":"Taneli","last_name":"Kukkonen","full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1064756859","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile","main_title":{"title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile"},"abstract":"When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's ratio- \r\nnale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments \"through the impossible\"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers \r\noffered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. \r\nWe shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of \r\nAristotle's intentions slowly emerges. [p. 141]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VugBKbHjOyRL2pO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":224,"full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":734,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"137-173"}},"sort":["Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile"]}
| Title | An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1981 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 398-409 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Huby, Pamela M. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The text discusses an excerpt of a set of leaves from a fourteenth-century manuscript called Laurentianus 71, 32, containing paraphrases of several works. Theodore Waitz uses these leaves for scholia on Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione. The heading of the leaves is "Peri tês tou pote katêgorias," and the work consists of two parts. The first part discusses Time, based on Physics 4, while the second part deals with the category of When, which Aristotle only briefly mentions. The author of the work is believed to be Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, who wrote a commentary on the Categories, as mentioned by Simplicius in his own commentary on the same work. Boethus is seen as a conservative who defended Aristotle against innovations, particularly Andronicus of Rhodes' attempt to substitute the category of Time for When. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/llavYlwH3pjrD2Q |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1355","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1355,"authors_free":[{"id":2029,"entry_id":1355,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?","main_title":{"title":"An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?"},"abstract":"The text discusses an excerpt of a set of leaves from a fourteenth-century manuscript called Laurentianus 71, 32, containing paraphrases of several works. Theodore Waitz uses these leaves for scholia on Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione. The heading of the leaves is \"Peri t\u00eas tou pote kat\u00eagorias,\" and the work consists of two parts. The first part discusses Time, based on Physics 4, while the second part deals with the category of When, which Aristotle only briefly mentions. The author of the work is believed to be Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, who wrote a commentary on the Categories, as mentioned by Simplicius in his own commentary on the same work. Boethus is seen as a conservative who defended Aristotle against innovations, particularly Andronicus of Rhodes' attempt to substitute the category of Time for When. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/llavYlwH3pjrD2Q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1355,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"31","issue":"2","pages":"398-409"}},"sort":["An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?"]}
| Title | Analyse de l'édition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d'Aristote |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1977 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 105 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 42-54 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Cordero, Néstor-Luis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This text discusses the Aldine edition of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, published in 1526. The author explains the meticulous process followed by Alde Manuce and his collaborators to prepare and compare various manuscripts of classical texts before printing them. The text also discusses the continuity of quality in Aldine editions after the death of Alde, and identifies Francesco d'Asola as the editor responsible for the 1526 edition of Simplicius. While d'Asola's conjectures are criticized as being "too bold," the author notes that there is a possibility he may have had access to the original source material. Overall, the article provides insight into the printing and publishing practices of the Aldine press during the Renaissance. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TutXOqoXMRgshj8 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1277","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1277,"authors_free":[{"id":1866,"entry_id":1277,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote"},"abstract":"This text discusses the Aldine edition of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, published in 1526. The author explains the meticulous process followed by Alde Manuce and his collaborators to prepare and compare various manuscripts of classical texts before printing them. The text also discusses the continuity of quality in Aldine editions after the death of Alde, and identifies Francesco d'Asola as the editor responsible for the 1526 edition of Simplicius. While d'Asola's conjectures are criticized as being \"too bold,\" the author notes that there is a possibility he may have had access to the original source material. Overall, the article provides insight into the printing and publishing practices of the Aldine press during the Renaissance. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TutXOqoXMRgshj8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1277,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"105","issue":"1","pages":"42-54"}},"sort":["Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote"]}