| Title | Priscianus Lydus en de "In De Anima" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Dutch |
| Date | 1972 |
| Journal | Tijdschrift voor Filosofie |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 761-822 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bossier, Fernand , Steel, Carlos |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. about their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre -Neoplatonic, hands survive, exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.] Source: https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MADsskDf9a78Egx • Bossier, Fernand and Carlos Steel, 1972, “Priscianus Lydus en de ‘In de Anima’ van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius”, Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie, 34(4): 761–822. Abstract: Dans cet article, nous avons essayé d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima à Simplicius. En comparant ce traité aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Catégories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons été en effet frappés par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la manière différente de commenter. Dans la première partie, nous démontrons que l'auteur du In De Anima a écrit également la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a été transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien. Dans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie à une de ses œuvres, qu'il appelle "Epitomé de la Physique de Théophraste". En réalité, cette référence se rapporte à un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, où la même problématique est exposée dans des termes identiques. - 2° Une comparaison détaillée, qui porte sur l'ensemble des deux œuvres, nous révèle une telle ressemblance de style et de pensée - il y a même des phrases à peu près identiques - qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypothèse de l'identité de l'auteur. Dans la deuxième partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux œuvres qui nous ont pourtant été transmises sous deux noms différents. L'étude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte guère de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un à Simplicius, l'autre à Priscien, y paraît très solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne du In De Anima, notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra être tranchée. Dans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie trois fois à son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y réfère. - 2° Dans le In De Anima, on ne retrouve pas les traits caractéristiques de la méthode de commenter de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les exégètes antérieurs, ni l'exposé prolixe et bien structuré ; d'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne témoigne de la phraséologie tortueuse de notre œuvre, ni de ses formules stéréotypées. - 3° La différence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'apparaît la théorie de l'âme comme "émanation", qui est si fondamentale dans le In De Anima ("émanation" y est un concept-clé). Les rares digressions du In De Anima à propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux exposés de Simplicius sur les mêmes problèmes. Ainsi, nous avons confronté la doctrine de la "physis", de l'âme et de son "automotion", et enfin le rapport entre le "genre" et les différences "constitutives" et "diérétiques". De tout cela se dégage une telle divergence entre le In De Anima et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une évolution chez Simplicius lui-même. Le In De Anima lui est donc faussement attribué ; et puisque nous avons établi que ce commentaire est du même auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a été vraisemblablement écrit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe néoplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagné Damascius et Simplicius en exil en Perse. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ufNuMRxWJbAzWRP |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1077","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1077,"authors_free":[{"id":1632,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1633,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","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}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. about their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre -Neoplatonic, hands survive, exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]\r\nSource: https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MADsskDf9a78Egx\r\n\u2022\tBossier, Fernand and Carlos Steel, 1972, \u201cPriscianus Lydus en de \u2018In de Anima\u2019 van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius\u201d, Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie, 34(4): 761\u2013822.\r\nAbstract: Dans cet article, nous avons essay\u00e9 d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima \u00e0 Simplicius. En comparant ce trait\u00e9 aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Cat\u00e9gories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons \u00e9t\u00e9 en effet frapp\u00e9s par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la mani\u00e8re diff\u00e9rente de commenter. \r\nDans la premi\u00e8re partie, nous d\u00e9montrons que l'auteur du In De Anima a \u00e9crit \u00e9galement la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a \u00e9t\u00e9 transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien. Dans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie \u00e0 une de ses \u0153uvres, qu'il appelle \"Epitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste\". En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, cette r\u00e9f\u00e9rence se rapporte \u00e0 un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, o\u00f9 la m\u00eame probl\u00e9matique est expos\u00e9e dans des termes identiques. - 2\u00b0 Une comparaison d\u00e9taill\u00e9e, qui porte sur l'ensemble des deux \u0153uvres, nous r\u00e9v\u00e8le une telle ressemblance de style et de pens\u00e9e - il y a m\u00eame des phrases \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s identiques - qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'identit\u00e9 de l'auteur.\r\nDans la deuxi\u00e8me partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux \u0153uvres qui nous ont pourtant \u00e9t\u00e9 transmises sous deux noms diff\u00e9rents. L'\u00e9tude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte gu\u00e8re de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un \u00e0 Simplicius, l'autre \u00e0 Priscien, y para\u00eet tr\u00e8s solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne du In De Anima, notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra \u00eatre tranch\u00e9e.\r\nDans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie trois fois \u00e0 son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y r\u00e9f\u00e8re. - 2\u00b0 Dans le In De Anima, on ne retrouve pas les traits caract\u00e9ristiques de la m\u00e9thode de commenter de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes ant\u00e9rieurs, ni l'expos\u00e9 prolixe et bien structur\u00e9 ; d'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne t\u00e9moigne de la phras\u00e9ologie tortueuse de notre \u0153uvre, ni de ses formules st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9es. - 3\u00b0 La diff\u00e9rence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'appara\u00eet la th\u00e9orie de l'\u00e2me comme \"\u00e9manation\", qui est si fondamentale dans le In De Anima (\"\u00e9manation\" y est un concept-cl\u00e9). Les rares digressions du In De Anima \u00e0 propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux expos\u00e9s de Simplicius sur les m\u00eames probl\u00e8mes. Ainsi, nous avons confront\u00e9 la doctrine de la \"physis\", de l'\u00e2me et de son \"automotion\", et enfin le rapport entre le \"genre\" et les diff\u00e9rences \"constitutives\" et \"di\u00e9r\u00e9tiques\". De tout cela se d\u00e9gage une telle divergence entre le In De Anima et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une \u00e9volution chez Simplicius lui-m\u00eame. Le In De Anima lui est donc faussement attribu\u00e9 ; et puisque nous avons \u00e9tabli que ce commentaire est du m\u00eame auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 vraisemblablement \u00e9crit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagn\u00e9 Damascius et Simplicius en exil en Perse.\r\n[author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ufNuMRxWJbAzWRP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1077,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"34","issue":"4","pages":"761-822"}},"sort":[1972]}
| Title | The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1972 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 40-52 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Abraham, William E. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius has preserved (Phys. 140, 34) a Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from which it derives its size, then any such object must be at once of infinite magnitude and zero magnitude. This surprising consequence is based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but his argument is widely thought to be grossly fallacious. Most often he is supposed to have misunderstood the arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently, any such charge must be premised on some view of the particular nature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I seek to develop a view that Zeno's argument is in fact free from fallacy, and offer reason to fear that his real argument has usually been missed. [p. 40] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QHBs8Wv701RyPQh |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"780","_score":null,"_source":{"id":780,"authors_free":[{"id":1145,"entry_id":780,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":3,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abraham, William E.","free_first_name":"William E.","free_last_name":"Abraham","norm_person":{"id":3,"first_name":"William E.","last_name":"Abraham","full_name":"Abraham, William E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120967007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1","main_title":{"title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1"},"abstract":"Simplicius has preserved (Phys. 140, 34) a Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from \r\nwhich it derives its size, then any such object must be at once of \r\ninfinite magnitude and zero magnitude. This surprising consequence \r\nis based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but his argument is \r\nwidely thought to be grossly fallacious. Most often he is supposed to \r\nhave misunderstood the arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently, \r\nany such charge must be premised on some view of the particular \r\nnature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I seek \r\nto develop a view that Zeno's argument is in fact free from fallacy, \r\nand offer reason to fear that his real argument has usually been missed. [p. 40]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QHBs8Wv701RyPQh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":3,"full_name":"Abraham, William E.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":780,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"17","issue":"1","pages":"40-52"}},"sort":[1972]}
| Title | 'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff. |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1971 |
| Journal | The Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 91 |
| Pages | 138-139 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hall, J.J |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Thus all that Simplicius is saying, on Eudemus’ authority, is that Anaximander ‘was the first to discuss’ the sizes and distances of ‘planets’, using the latter term to include sun and moon; and this agrees with what the doxographers tell us: Anaximander had views about the distances of sun and moon, and the size of the sun.11 A sceptic, like Dicks, may question this whole tradition; but it should not be claimed that what Simplicius says of Anaximander and planômena in 471.2-6 is inconsistent with our other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZmTTpk12fUJCyWj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1342","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1342,"authors_free":[{"id":2000,"entry_id":1342,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":165,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hall, J.J","free_first_name":"J.J.","free_last_name":"Hall","norm_person":{"id":165,"first_name":"J.J","last_name":"Hall","full_name":"Hall, J. J","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.","main_title":{"title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff."},"abstract":"Thus all that Simplicius is saying, on Eudemus\u2019 \r\nauthority, is that Anaximander \u2018was the first to \r\ndiscuss\u2019 the sizes and distances of \u2018planets\u2019, using the latter term to include sun and moon; and this agrees with what the doxographers tell us: Anaximander had views about the distances of sun and moon, and the size of the sun.11 A sceptic, like Dicks, may question this whole tradition; but it should not be claimed that what Simplicius says of Anaximander and plan\u00f4mena in 471.2-6 is incon\u00adsistent with our other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZmTTpk12fUJCyWj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":165,"full_name":"Hall, J. J","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1342,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"91","issue":"","pages":"138-139"}},"sort":[1971]}
| Title | ΟΜΟΥ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΗΝ |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1971 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 99 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 246-248 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rösler, Wolfgang |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Wie alle umfangreicheren Fragmente der Abhandlung Περί φύσεως des Anaxagoras ist auch Fr. 1 (VS 59 B 1) durch den Kommentar des Simphkios zur Aristotelischen Physik überliefert. Simplikios hatte die Möglichkeit, ein Exemplar der Schrift des ionischen Philosophen zu benutzen. In seiner ganzen Länge erscheint das Fragment, dessen Stellung am Anfang des Buches aus drücklich bezeugt ist, nur einmal {155, 26) ; daneben gibt es weitere Passagen, in denen lediglich der einleitende Satz bzw. dessen Beginn zitiert wird. Ein Überblick zeigt, daß zwischen den einzelnen Zitaten Unterschiede in der Wort stellung bestehen. Deshalb soll im folgenden der Versuch unternommen werden, die ursprüngliche Anordnung in der Textvorlage des Simphkios zu rekonstru ieren. [p. 246] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9n12ZGIEEzHXfpF |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"774","_score":null,"_source":{"id":774,"authors_free":[{"id":1138,"entry_id":774,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":383,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"R\u00f6sler","norm_person":{"id":383,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"R\u00f6sler","full_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133199266","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a5 \u03a7\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0397\u039d","main_title":{"title":"\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a5 \u03a7\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0397\u039d"},"abstract":"Wie alle umfangreicheren Fragmente der Abhandlung \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 des \r\nAnaxagoras ist auch Fr. 1 (VS 59 B 1) durch den Kommentar des Simphkios \r\nzur Aristotelischen Physik \u00fcberliefert. Simplikios hatte die M\u00f6glichkeit, ein \r\nExemplar der Schrift des ionischen Philosophen zu benutzen. In seiner ganzen \r\nL\u00e4nge erscheint das Fragment, dessen Stellung am Anfang des Buches aus\u00ad\r\ndr\u00fccklich bezeugt ist, nur einmal {155, 26) ; daneben gibt es weitere Passagen, \r\nin denen lediglich der einleitende Satz bzw. dessen Beginn zitiert wird. Ein \r\n\u00dcberblick zeigt, da\u00df zwischen den einzelnen Zitaten Unterschiede in der Wort\u00ad\r\nstellung bestehen. Deshalb soll im folgenden der Versuch unternommen werden, \r\ndie urspr\u00fcngliche Anordnung in der Textvorlage des Simphkios zu rekonstru\u00ad\r\nieren. [p. 246]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9n12ZGIEEzHXfpF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":383,"full_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":774,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"99","issue":"2","pages":"246-248"}},"sort":[1971]}
| Title | The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1971 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 116-141 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Solmsen, Friedrich |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper makes no attempt to compete with the brilliant studies through which in the last thirty years several scholars have ad- vanced our understanding of the evidence for Zeno of Elea and in particular of the verbatim preserved fragments. In fact my in- tention is not to replace theories by other theories but to create doubt about matters that for some time have been taken for granted and to change confident assumptions into hypotheses that would tolerate others besides them. [p. 116] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/x10aAvObhnTaTON |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1016","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1016,"authors_free":[{"id":1532,"entry_id":1016,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":316,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","free_first_name":"Friedrich","free_last_name":"Solmsen","norm_person":{"id":316,"first_name":"Friedrich","last_name":"Solmsen","full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754641","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined","main_title":{"title":"The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined"},"abstract":"This paper makes no attempt to compete with the brilliant studies \r\nthrough which in the last thirty years several scholars have ad- \r\nvanced our understanding of the evidence for Zeno of Elea and \r\nin particular of the verbatim preserved fragments. In fact my in- \r\ntention is not to replace theories by other theories but to create \r\ndoubt about matters that for some time have been taken for granted \r\nand to change confident assumptions into hypotheses that would \r\ntolerate others besides them. [p. 116]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x10aAvObhnTaTON","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1016,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"16","issue":"2","pages":"116-141"}},"sort":[1971]}
| Title | Anaximander and Dr Dicks |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1970 |
| Journal | The Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 90 |
| Pages | 198-199 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | O'Brien, Denis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nVEgVIWZoLZ793l |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1102","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1102,"authors_free":[{"id":1665,"entry_id":1102,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O'Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaximander and Dr Dicks","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander and Dr Dicks"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1970","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nVEgVIWZoLZ793l","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1102,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"90","issue":"","pages":"198-199"}},"sort":[1970]}
| Title | Parmenides, B 8. 4 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1970 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 32-34 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wilson, John Richard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The text of Parmenides 8. 4 is unusually corrupt. [p. 32] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XNwbpdwwJgZDWs5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"840","_score":null,"_source":{"id":840,"authors_free":[{"id":1244,"entry_id":840,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":363,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilson, John Richard","free_first_name":"John Richard","free_last_name":"Wilson","norm_person":{"id":363,"first_name":"John Richard","last_name":"Wilson","full_name":"Wilson, John Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173000916","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, B 8. 4","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, B 8. 4"},"abstract":"The text of Parmenides 8. 4 is unusually corrupt. [p. 32]","btype":3,"date":"1970","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XNwbpdwwJgZDWs5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":363,"full_name":"Wilson, John Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":840,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"20","issue":"1","pages":"32-34"}},"sort":[1970]}
| Title | Die Entstehung physikalischer Terminologie aus der neuplatonischen Metaphysik |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |
| Volume | 13 |
| Pages | 7-33 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tsouyopoulos, Nelly |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5pNxkufH3Ik3PjS |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"457","_score":null,"_source":{"id":457,"authors_free":[{"id":614,"entry_id":457,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":410,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tsouyopoulos, Nelly","free_first_name":"Nelly","free_last_name":"Tsouyopoulos","norm_person":{"id":410,"first_name":" Nelly ","last_name":"Tsouyopoulos","full_name":"Tsouyopoulos, Nelly ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Entstehung physikalischer Terminologie aus der neuplatonischen Metaphysik","main_title":{"title":"Die Entstehung physikalischer Terminologie aus der neuplatonischen Metaphysik"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5pNxkufH3Ik3PjS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":410,"full_name":"Tsouyopoulos, Nelly ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":457,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"13","issue":"","pages":"7-33"}},"sort":[1969]}
| Title | John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Oriental Society |
| Volume | 89 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 357-391 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Davidson, Herbert A. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Information from a number of sources has established that John Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem, a refutation of Aristotle's proofs of the eternity of the world, was at least partially available to the Arabic philosophers in the Middle Ages. The present article shows that the Arabic Jewish writer Sacadia used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus. With the aid of this result the following further conclusions are also drawn: Kindi too used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus; a variety of medieval arguments from the impossibility of an infinite are to be traced to Philoponus; the standard Kalām proof of creation, the proof from "accidents," originated as a reformulation of one of Philoponus' arguments. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S0gw5n3A3GJL79C |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1295","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1295,"authors_free":[{"id":1888,"entry_id":1295,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":84,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Davidson, Herbert A.","free_first_name":"Herbert A.","free_last_name":"Davidson","norm_person":{"id":84,"first_name":"Herbert A.","last_name":"Davidson","full_name":"Davidson, Herbert A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/15814743X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation"},"abstract":"Information from a number of sources has established that John Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem, a refutation of Aristotle's proofs of the eternity of the world, was at least partially available to the Arabic philosophers in the Middle Ages. The present article shows that the Arabic Jewish writer Sacadia used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus. With the aid of this result the following further conclusions are also drawn: Kindi too used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus; a variety of medieval arguments from the impossibility of an infinite are to be traced to Philoponus; the standard Kal\u0101m proof of creation, the proof from \"accidents,\" originated as a reformulation of one of Philoponus' arguments. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S0gw5n3A3GJL79C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":84,"full_name":"Davidson, Herbert A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1295,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the American Oriental Society","volume":"89","issue":"2","pages":"357-391"}},"sort":[1969]}
| Title | Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren über die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 112 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 120-126 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Müller, Carl Werner |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Das am häufigsten interpretierte Werk des Corpus Aristote- licum in der Antike ist die Kategorienschrift. Die den Kommen taren vorausgeschickte Einleitung kommt dabei meist einer all gemeinen Einführung in das Studium der aristotelischen Philo sophie gleich. Seit Ammonios, dem Sohn des Hermeias, wird in diesem Zusammenhang auch das Problem der vöfta ßißXLa be rührt (CAG IV4, 8, 2-6)x). Während aber Ammonios selbst nur kurz das Faktum, viele hätten ihre eigenen Werke unter dem Namen des Aristoteles herausgegeben, erwähnt zu haben scheint2), erfährt dieser Punkt bei seinen Schülern eine mehr oder weniger umfangreiche Ausgestaltung. [p. 120] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0XdjWLb1V5DzrX9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"950","_score":null,"_source":{"id":950,"authors_free":[{"id":1426,"entry_id":950,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":273,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Carl Werner","free_first_name":"Carl Werner","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":273,"first_name":"Carl Werner","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Carl Werner","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11944027X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren \u00fcber die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie","main_title":{"title":"Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren \u00fcber die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie"},"abstract":"Das am h\u00e4ufigsten interpretierte Werk des Corpus Aristote- \r\nlicum in der Antike ist die Kategorienschrift. Die den Kommen\u00ad\r\ntaren vorausgeschickte Einleitung kommt dabei meist einer all\u00ad\r\ngemeinen Einf\u00fchrung in das Studium der aristotelischen Philo\u00ad\r\nsophie gleich. Seit Ammonios, dem Sohn des Hermeias, wird in \r\ndiesem Zusammenhang auch das Problem der v\u00f6fta \u00dfi\u00dfXLa be\u00ad\r\nr\u00fchrt (CAG IV4, 8, 2-6)x). W\u00e4hrend aber Ammonios selbst nur \r\nkurz das Faktum, viele h\u00e4tten ihre eigenen Werke unter dem \r\nNamen des Aristoteles herausgegeben, erw\u00e4hnt zu haben \r\nscheint2), erf\u00e4hrt dieser Punkt bei seinen Sch\u00fclern eine mehr \r\noder weniger umfangreiche Ausgestaltung. [p. 120]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0XdjWLb1V5DzrX9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":273,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Carl Werner","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":950,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"112","issue":"2","pages":"120-126"}},"sort":[1969]}
| Title | Some Problems in Anaximander |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1955 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 1/2 |
| Pages | 21-38 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kirk, G.S. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This article deals with four almost classic problems in Anaximander. Of these the first is of comparatively minor importance, and the second is important not for what Anaximander thought but for what Aristotle thought he thought. Problem I is: Did Anaximander describe his 3 dE"repov as apX-, ? Problem 2: Did Aristotle mean Anaximander when he referred to people who postulated an intermediate substance? Problem 3: Did Anaximander think that there were innumerable successive worlds? Problem 4: What is the extent and implication of the extant fragment of Anaximander ? Appended is a brief con- sideration of the nature of Theophrastus' source-material for Anaximander; on one's opinion of this question the assessment of the last two problems will clearly depend. [p. 21] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cO7A7jXgYgxes2N |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"737","_score":null,"_source":{"id":737,"authors_free":[{"id":1100,"entry_id":737,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":216,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kirk, G.S.","free_first_name":"G.S.","free_last_name":"Kirk","norm_person":{"id":216,"first_name":"G. S.","last_name":"Kirk","full_name":"Kirk, G. S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Problems in Anaximander","main_title":{"title":"Some Problems in Anaximander"},"abstract":"This article deals with four almost classic problems in Anaximander. Of these \r\nthe first is of comparatively minor importance, and the second is important not \r\nfor what Anaximander thought but for what Aristotle thought he thought. \r\nProblem I is: Did Anaximander describe his 3 dE\"repov as apX-, ? Problem 2: Did Aristotle mean Anaximander when he referred to people who postulated \r\nan intermediate substance? Problem 3: Did Anaximander think that there \r\nwere innumerable successive worlds? Problem 4: What is the extent and \r\nimplication of the extant fragment of Anaximander ? Appended is a brief con- \r\nsideration of the nature of Theophrastus' source-material for Anaximander; \r\non one's opinion of this question the assessment of the last two problems will \r\nclearly depend. [p. 21]","btype":3,"date":"1955","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cO7A7jXgYgxes2N","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":216,"full_name":"Kirk, G. S.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":737,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"5","issue":"1\/2","pages":"21-38"}},"sort":["Some Problems in Anaximander"]}
| Title | Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1978 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 106 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 73-99 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tarán, Leonardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
n I904 E. HAMBRUCH2 tried to show that sometimes Aristotle himself uses synonymna in the Speusippean sense [...] and that in so doing he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of HAMBRUCH has been accepted by several scholars, including LANG, STENZEL, and CHERNISS 3; and, though some doubts about its soundness were expressed from different points of view4, it was only in I97I that Mr. Jonathan BARNES5 made a systematic assault on it. He contends, in the first place, that Speusippus's conception of homonyma and synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, the slight differences between their respective definitions of each being trivial, and, secondly, that even though in a few places Aristotle does use homonyma and synonyma as properties of linguistic terms, this is due to the fact that Aristotle's use of these words is not as rigid as the Categories would lead one to believe; he could not have been influenced by Speusippus because the latter conceived homonymy and synonymy as properties of things and, in any case, if influence of one on the other be assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle that influenced Speusippus. Though I believe that his two main contentions are mistaken, I am here mainly concerned with the first part of BARNES' thesis; for, if he were right in believing that for Speusippus homonyma and synonyma are properties of things and not of names or linguistic terms, then HAMBRUCH'S notion that Speusippus did influence Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property of names would be wrong, even though BARNES himself were mistaken in his analysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper. [pp. 73 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vll1Z7jifmlOH0h |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"843","_score":null,"_source":{"id":843,"authors_free":[{"id":1247,"entry_id":843,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"},"abstract":"n I904 E. HAMBRUCH2 tried to show that sometimes Aristotle himself \r\nuses synonymna in the Speusippean sense [...] and that in so doing he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of HAMBRUCH has been accepted \r\nby several scholars, including LANG, STENZEL, and CHERNISS 3; and, though \r\nsome doubts about its soundness were expressed from different points of view4, \r\nit was only in I97I that Mr. Jonathan BARNES5 made a systematic assault \r\non it. He contends, in the first place, that Speusippus's conception of homonyma \r\nand synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, the slight differences \r\nbetween their respective definitions of each being trivial, and, secondly, that \r\neven though in a few places Aristotle does use homonyma and synonyma as \r\nproperties of linguistic terms, this is due to the fact that Aristotle's use of these \r\nwords is not as rigid as the Categories would lead one to believe; he could not \r\nhave been influenced by Speusippus because the latter conceived homonymy \r\nand synonymy as properties of things and, in any case, if influence of one on \r\nthe other be assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle that influenced \r\nSpeusippus. \r\nThough I believe that his two main contentions are mistaken, I am here \r\nmainly concerned with the first part of BARNES' thesis; for, if he were right \r\nin believing that for Speusippus homonyma and synonyma are properties of \r\nthings and not of names or linguistic terms, then HAMBRUCH'S notion that \r\nSpeusippus did influence Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property \r\nof names would be wrong, even though BARNES himself were mistaken in his \r\nanalysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper. [pp. 73 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vll1Z7jifmlOH0h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":843,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"73-99"}},"sort":["Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"]}
| Title | Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 1988 |
| Journal | Studi Classici e Orientali |
| Volume | 38 |
| Pages | 331–346 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Linguiti, Alessandro |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hOpjaWHtUiu9Hk9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"871","_score":null,"_source":{"id":871,"authors_free":[{"id":1280,"entry_id":871,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":250,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","free_first_name":"Alessandro","free_last_name":"Linguiti","norm_person":{"id":250,"first_name":"Alessandro","last_name":"Linguiti","full_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137059574","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1988","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hOpjaWHtUiu9Hk9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":250,"full_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":871,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studi Classici e Orientali","volume":"38","issue":"","pages":"331\u2013346"}},"sort":["Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio"]}
| Title | Studies in Xenophanes |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1990 |
| Journal | Harvard Studies in Classical Philology |
| Volume | 93 |
| Pages | 103-167 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Finkelberg, Aryeh |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Discussion of Xenophanes' teaching with texts of Aristotle, Ps.-Plutarch, Simplicius, Theophrastus. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/P4ntkCF3J6g1jAI |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"748","_score":null,"_source":{"id":748,"authors_free":[{"id":1113,"entry_id":748,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in Xenophanes","main_title":{"title":"Studies in Xenophanes"},"abstract":"Discussion of Xenophanes' teaching with texts of Aristotle, Ps.-Plutarch, Simplicius, Theophrastus.","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/P4ntkCF3J6g1jAI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":748,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Harvard Studies in Classical Philology","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"103-167"}},"sort":["Studies in Xenophanes"]}
| Title | Sur la période finale de la philosophie grecque |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1896 |
| Journal | Revue philosophique de la France et de L'Étranger |
| Volume | 42 |
| Pages | 266-287 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tannery, Paul |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LuMKopoJXDelpZf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"476","_score":null,"_source":{"id":476,"authors_free":[{"id":642,"entry_id":476,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":329,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tannery, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Tannery","norm_person":{"id":329,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Tannery","full_name":"Tannery, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117201065","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Sur la p\u00e9riode finale de la philosophie grecque","main_title":{"title":"Sur la p\u00e9riode finale de la philosophie grecque"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1896","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LuMKopoJXDelpZf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":329,"full_name":"Tannery, Paul","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":476,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue philosophique de la France et de L'\u00c9tranger","volume":"42","issue":"","pages":"266-287"}},"sort":["Sur la p\u00e9riode finale de la philosophie grecque"]}
| Title | Sur les pas d'un pèlerin païen à travers la Syrie chrétienne: À propos du livre de Michel Tardieu |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1994 |
| Journal | Syria |
| Volume | 71 |
| Issue | 1/2 |
| Pages | 217-226 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bauzou, Thomas |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This à propos to the book Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore à Simplicius by Michel Tardieu discusses how Tardieu's book collects and comments on previously unknown fragments by Damascius and Simplicius, the last pagan intellectuals of a region that was in the process of complete Christianisation. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bS3xW770wCVF9Ge |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1121","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1121,"authors_free":[{"id":1695,"entry_id":1121,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":419,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bauzou, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Bauzou","norm_person":{"id":419,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Bauzou","full_name":"Bauzou, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1137532572","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Sur les pas d'un p\u00e8lerin pa\u00efen \u00e0 travers la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne: \u00c0 propos du livre de Michel Tardieu","main_title":{"title":"Sur les pas d'un p\u00e8lerin pa\u00efen \u00e0 travers la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne: \u00c0 propos du livre de Michel Tardieu"},"abstract":"This \u00e0 propos to the book Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius by Michel Tardieu discusses how Tardieu's book collects and comments on previously unknown fragments by Damascius and Simplicius, the last pagan intellectuals of a region that was in the process of complete Christianisation. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1994","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bS3xW770wCVF9Ge","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":419,"full_name":"Bauzou, Thomas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1121,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syria","volume":"71","issue":"1\/2","pages":"217-226"}},"sort":["Sur les pas d'un p\u00e8lerin pa\u00efen \u00e0 travers la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne: \u00c0 propos du livre de Michel Tardieu"]}
| Title | The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Quaestiones Disputatae |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 7-23 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/flJbYNytd91hTDh |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1510,"authors_free":[{"id":2623,"entry_id":1510,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/flJbYNytd91hTDh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1510,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"2","issue":"4","pages":"7-23"}},"sort":["The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism"]}
| Title | The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-22 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Simplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius’s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius’s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/s9FnHJ01Q1rEt0h |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1466","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1466,"authors_free":[{"id":2539,"entry_id":1466,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim\u00adplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius\u2019s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius\u2019s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/s9FnHJ01Q1rEt0h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1466,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":["The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"]}
| Title | The Cosmology of Parmenides |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1986 |
| Journal | The American Journal of Philology |
| Volume | 107 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 303-317 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Finkelberg, Aryeh |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Our main source of information about the cosmological component of Parmenides’ doctrine of Opinion —apart from the first three and a half abstruse lines of fr. 12 — is Aetius’ account. This, however, is generally regarded as confused, garbled and incompatible with fr. 12. The reconstruction of Parmenides’ cosmology is thus considered a hopeless task, for “it must inevitably be based on many conjectures.” I, however, cannot accept this conclusion, for, as I argue below, it is possible to provide a reasonably intelligible account of Aetius’ report (except for the corrupt sentence about the goddess) which is also compatible with fr. 12, provided, of course, that we are not bent upon proving our sources incompatible, but rather seek to reconcile them. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ACI5Tk5oRBRvxWG |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"548","_score":null,"_source":{"id":548,"authors_free":[{"id":772,"entry_id":548,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Cosmology of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"The Cosmology of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Our main source of information about the cosmological compo\u00adnent of Parmenides\u2019 doctrine of Opinion \u2014apart from the first three and a half abstruse lines of fr. 12 \u2014 is Aetius\u2019 account. This, however, is generally regarded as confused, garbled and incompatible with fr. 12. The reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 cosmology is thus considered a hope\u00adless task, for \u201cit must inevitably be based on many conjectures.\u201d I, however, cannot accept this conclusion, for, as I argue below, it is possible to provide a reasonably intelligible account of Aetius\u2019 report (except for the corrupt sentence about the goddess) which is also com\u00adpatible with fr. 12, provided, of course, that we are not bent upon prov\u00ading our sources incompatible, but rather seek to reconcile them. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ACI5Tk5oRBRvxWG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":548,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"107","issue":"3","pages":"303-317"}},"sort":["The Cosmology of Parmenides"]}
| Title | The End of Aristotle's on Prayer |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1985 |
| Journal | The American Journal of Philology |
| Volume | 106 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 110-113 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rist, John M. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Jean Pepin recently devoted a lengthy study to Aristotle's On Prayer;' there is good reason to think that the work never existed. On Prayer is listed in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Aristotle's writings (5.22) and in the Vita Hesychii.2 The only other evidence for its exis- tence is a passage of Simplicius3 that tells us that at the end of On Prayer Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind (6 Esoq ii voUq EaTiV Ti CrenCKEva TOU voU). The claim that God is be- yond mind is unique in an unemended Aristotelian text, but the notion would be acceptable to Simplicius both because, as a Neoplatonist, he would believe it to be true, and because as a Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle he would be happy to find evidence of the basic philosophi- cal harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see why Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view... [pp. 110 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6lThLMu5Mp64X1o |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"858","_score":null,"_source":{"id":858,"authors_free":[{"id":1262,"entry_id":858,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":303,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rist, John M.","free_first_name":"John M.","free_last_name":"Rist","norm_person":{"id":303,"first_name":"John M.","last_name":"Rist","full_name":"Rist, John M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137060440","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The End of Aristotle's on Prayer","main_title":{"title":"The End of Aristotle's on Prayer"},"abstract":"Jean Pepin recently devoted a lengthy study to Aristotle's On \r\nPrayer;' there is good reason to think that the work never existed. On \r\nPrayer is listed in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Aristotle's writings (5.22) and in the Vita Hesychii.2 The only other evidence for its exis- \r\ntence is a passage of Simplicius3 that tells us that at the end of On Prayer Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind \r\n(6 Esoq ii voUq EaTiV Ti CrenCKEva TOU voU). The claim that God is be- \r\nyond mind is unique in an unemended Aristotelian text, but the notion \r\nwould be acceptable to Simplicius both because, as a Neoplatonist, he \r\nwould believe it to be true, and because as a Neoplatonic commentator \r\non Aristotle he would be happy to find evidence of the basic philosophi- cal harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see \r\nwhy Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view... [pp. 110 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lThLMu5Mp64X1o","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":303,"full_name":"Rist, John M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":858,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"110-113"}},"sort":["The End of Aristotle's on Prayer"]}