Title | Die Welt, Ungeworden und Unvergänglch: Interpretation und Textkritik zu Aristoteles, De caelo A 11-12 |
Type | Article |
Language | German |
Date | 1969 |
Journal | Hermes |
Volume | 97 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 198-204 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mau, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Das Thema für Kap. n — 12 ist am Schluß von Kap. 10 gegeben; 280a 28: »Einige vertreten die Ansicht, etwas dem Werden nicht Unterliegendes (aye- vy)tov) könne vergehen, und etwas Entstandenes könne unvergänglich bestehen bleiben, wie im Timaios. Dort nämlich sagt (Platon), der Himmel sei zwar ge worden, indessen werde er die übrige immerwährende Zeit existieren. Mit diesen haben wir uns bisher nur unter physikalischen Gesichtspunkten betreffs des Himmels auseinandergesetzt. Nachdem wir die Untersuchung aber allge mein über alles angestellt haben, wird auch hierüber Klarheit sein.«Wir dürfen also eine Argumentation erwarten, der Form: »Wenn für jedes Subjekt gilt: Es kann nicht geworden und unvergänglich sein, dann gilt es auch für den Himmel. Nun gilt es für jedes, also auch für den Himmel.« Dieser Beweis — besser: diese Beweise, denn es handelt sich nicht um eine elemen- tatio, wie Aristoteles sie für die Geometrie kannte und wie, aus Aristoteles schöpfend, 700 Jahre später Proklos sie für Physik und Theologie schrieb, — finden sich in Kap. 12... [p. 198] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fufmk0R2fa91Fgd |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"994","_score":null,"_source":{"id":994,"authors_free":[{"id":1498,"entry_id":994,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":241,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mau, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Mau","norm_person":{"id":241,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Mau","full_name":"Mau,J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117747351","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Welt, Ungeworden und Unverg\u00e4nglch: Interpretation und Textkritik zu Aristoteles, De caelo A 11-12","main_title":{"title":"Die Welt, Ungeworden und Unverg\u00e4nglch: Interpretation und Textkritik zu Aristoteles, De caelo A 11-12"},"abstract":"Das Thema f\u00fcr Kap. n \u2014 12 ist am Schlu\u00df von Kap. 10 gegeben; 280a 28: \r\n\u00bbEinige vertreten die Ansicht, etwas dem Werden nicht Unterliegendes (aye- \r\nvy)tov) k\u00f6nne vergehen, und etwas Entstandenes k\u00f6nne unverg\u00e4nglich bestehen \r\nbleiben, wie im Timaios. Dort n\u00e4mlich sagt (Platon), der Himmel sei zwar ge\u00ad\r\nworden, indessen werde er die \u00fcbrige immerw\u00e4hrende Zeit existieren. Mit \r\ndiesen haben wir uns bisher nur unter physikalischen Gesichtspunkten betreffs \r\ndes Himmels auseinandergesetzt. Nachdem wir die Untersuchung aber allge\u00ad\r\nmein \u00fcber alles angestellt haben, wird auch hier\u00fcber Klarheit sein.\u00abWir d\u00fcrfen also eine Argumentation erwarten, der Form: \u00bbWenn f\u00fcr jedes \r\nSubjekt gilt: Es kann nicht geworden und unverg\u00e4nglich sein, dann gilt es \r\nauch f\u00fcr den Himmel. Nun gilt es f\u00fcr jedes, also auch f\u00fcr den Himmel.\u00ab Dieser \r\nBeweis \u2014 besser: diese Beweise, denn es handelt sich nicht um eine elemen- \r\ntatio, wie Aristoteles sie f\u00fcr die Geometrie kannte und wie, aus Aristoteles \r\nsch\u00f6pfend, 700 Jahre sp\u00e4ter Proklos sie f\u00fcr Physik und Theologie schrieb, \r\n\u2014 finden sich in Kap. 12... [p. 198]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fufmk0R2fa91Fgd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":241,"full_name":"Mau,J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":994,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"97","issue":"2","pages":"198-204"}},"sort":[1969]}
Title | Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1969 |
Journal | Journal of the History of Philosophy |
Volume | 7 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 1–18 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Anton, John Peter |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The main pourpose of this paper is to offer an exposition and a critical examina- tion of the ancient interpretations of Aristotle's doctrine of h o m o n y m . A circum- locution of what Aristotle means by h o m o n y m things is given in Categories, Ch. I I a. The ancient interpretations with which we are concerned in this paper are to be found in the extant commentaries on this treatise. Evidently, more com- mentaries had been written on the Categories than the vicissitudes of time allowed to survive, but we have only those of the following writers: Porphyrius (c: 233-303), Dexippus (ft. c. 350), Ammonius (ft. C. 485), Philoponus (c. 490-530), Olympiodorus (ft. c. 535), $implicius (ft. c. 533), Elias (ft. c. 550). One might add here the relevant writings of John Damascene (675-749), Photius (820-891), and Michael Psellus (1018-1079), which are useful paraphrases rather than full commentaries; for that reason the interpretations they support are not discussed in this paper. [Introduction, p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gl38sMRyj06PcEg |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1003","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1003,"authors_free":[{"id":1508,"entry_id":1003,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":34,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Anton, John Peter","free_first_name":"John Peter","free_last_name":"Anton","norm_person":{"id":34,"first_name":"John Peter","last_name":"Anton","full_name":"Anton, John Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/171952154","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma"},"abstract":"The main pourpose of this paper is to offer an exposition and a critical examina- \r\ntion of the ancient interpretations of Aristotle's doctrine of h o m o n y m . A circum- \r\nlocution of what Aristotle means by h o m o n y m things is given in Categories, \r\nCh. I I a. The ancient interpretations with which we are concerned in this paper are \r\nto be found in the extant commentaries on this treatise. Evidently, more com- \r\nmentaries had been written on the Categories than the vicissitudes of time allowed \r\nto survive, but we have only those of the following writers: Porphyrius (c: 233-303), \r\nDexippus (ft. c. 350), Ammonius (ft. C. 485), Philoponus (c. 490-530), Olympiodorus \r\n(ft. c. 535), $implicius (ft. c. 533), Elias (ft. c. 550). One might add here the relevant \r\nwritings of John Damascene (675-749), Photius (820-891), and Michael Psellus \r\n(1018-1079), which are useful paraphrases rather than full commentaries; for that \r\nreason the interpretations they support are not discussed in this paper. [Introduction, p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gl38sMRyj06PcEg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":34,"full_name":"Anton, John Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1003,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Philosophy","volume":"7","issue":"1","pages":"1\u201318"}},"sort":[1969]}
Title | Simplicius’s Proof of Euclid’s Parallels Postulate |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1969 |
Journal | Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes |
Volume | 32 |
Pages | 1-24 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sabra, A. I. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
A commentary by Simplicius on the premisses to Book I of Euclid’s Elements survives in an Arabic translation of which the author and the exact date of execution are unknown. The translation is reproduced by the ninth-century mathematician al-Fadl ibn Hâtim al-Nayrïzï in the course of his own com mentary on the Elements. Of Nayrïzî’s commentary, which is based on the earlier translation of the Elements by al-Hajjâj ibn Yûsuf ibn Matar, we have only one manuscript copy at Leiden and Gerard of Cremona’s Latin trans lation, both of which have been published.1The passages quoted by Nayrïzï, owing to their extensiveness and con secutive order, would strongly lead one to assume that they together make up the whole of Simplicius’s text. In what follows, however, I shall argue that they suffer from at least one important omission : a proof by Simplicius himself of Euclid’s parallels postulate. Since the omission occurs both in the Leiden manuscript and in Gerard’s translation, it cannot simply be an accidental feature of the former. My argument will consist in (i) citing evidence (Document I) to the effect that such a proof was known to some Arabic mathematicians, and (2) producing a hitherto unnoticed text (Document II) which, in the light of the evidence cited, may well be taken to be the missing proof. In addition, I shall show how Simplicius’s proof entered Arabic discussions on parallels, first, by being made subject to criticism (Document I), and then by being incorporated into a new proof which was designed to take that criticism into account (Document III). [p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yyXlDjNP3t7ipML |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1055","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1055,"authors_free":[{"id":1602,"entry_id":1055,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":396,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sabra, A. I.","free_first_name":"A. I.","free_last_name":"Sabra","norm_person":{"id":396,"first_name":"A. I.","last_name":"Sabra","full_name":"Sabra, A. I.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023667843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019s Proof of Euclid\u2019s Parallels Postulate","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019s Proof of Euclid\u2019s Parallels Postulate"},"abstract":"A commentary by Simplicius on the premisses to Book I of Euclid\u2019s Elements \r\nsurvives in an Arabic translation of which the author and the exact date \r\nof execution are unknown. The translation is reproduced by the ninth-century \r\nmathematician al-Fadl ibn H\u00e2tim al-Nayr\u00efz\u00ef in the course of his own com\u00ad\r\nmentary on the Elements. Of Nayr\u00efz\u00ee\u2019s commentary, which is based on the \r\nearlier translation of the Elements by al-Hajj\u00e2j ibn Y\u00fbsuf ibn Matar, we have \r\nonly one manuscript copy at Leiden and Gerard of Cremona\u2019s Latin trans\u00ad\r\nlation, both of which have been published.1The passages quoted by Nayr\u00efz\u00ef, owing to their extensiveness and con\u00ad\r\nsecutive order, would strongly lead one to assume that they together make \r\nup the whole of Simplicius\u2019s text. In what follows, however, I shall argue that \r\nthey suffer from at least one important omission : a proof by Simplicius himself \r\nof Euclid\u2019s parallels postulate. Since the omission occurs both in the Leiden \r\nmanuscript and in Gerard\u2019s translation, it cannot simply be an accidental \r\nfeature of the former. My argument will consist in (i) citing evidence \r\n(Document I) to the effect that such a proof was known to some Arabic \r\nmathematicians, and (2) producing a hitherto unnoticed text (Document \r\nII) which, in the light of the evidence cited, may well be taken to be the \r\nmissing proof. In addition, I shall show how Simplicius\u2019s proof entered Arabic \r\ndiscussions on parallels, first, by being made subject to criticism (Document I), \r\nand then by being incorporated into a new proof which was designed to take \r\nthat criticism into account (Document III). [p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yyXlDjNP3t7ipML","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":396,"full_name":"Sabra, A. I.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1055,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes","volume":"32","issue":"","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":[1969]}
Title | Die Widerlegung des Manichäismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios |
Type | Article |
Language | German |
Date | 1969 |
Journal | Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie |
Volume | 51 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 31-57 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Die Widerlegung des Manichäismus im Kommentar des Simplikios zu Epiktet von Ilsetraut Hadot ist eine Studie über die Existenz und den Ursprung des Bösen, ein Thema, das im Encheiridion des Epiktet seinen Platz findet. Hadot zeigt, dass Simplikios mit Epiktet in der Ablehnung des ontologischen Charakters des Bösen übereinstimmt, da die Natur des Bösen keinen Platz in der Welt hat, und er verwendet auch stoische Argumente, die auch im Neuplatonismus und im Christentum verwendet werden, um das Thema zu behandeln. Simplikios argumentiert gegen das manichäische System mit einem polemischen Ton, der den polemischen Werken anderer Autoren gegen die Manichäer ähnelt. Simplikios hält die gründliche Widerlegung des manichäischen Systems für notwendig, insbesondere seit dem Wiederaufleben der Manichäer im byzantinischen Reich. Simplikios' Kommentar soll als Anleitung zur Selbstvervollkommnung dienen, und aus diesem Grund bietet er nicht nur eine umfassende Diskussion über den Ursprung des Bösen, sondern widmet auch einen beträchtlichen Teil seines Werks der gründlichen Widerlegung des manichäischen Systems. Simplikios stützt sich bei seiner Argumentation auf das philosophische System von Proklos und erwähnt die Manichäer nur im zweiten Teil seiner Erörterung, in dem er die Hypothese widerlegt, dass das Böse als Prinzip neben dem Guten angesehen werden kann. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HFw9upuC8f3LCzo |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1131,"authors_free":[{"id":1706,"entry_id":1131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios"},"abstract":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Kommentar des Simplikios zu Epiktet von Ilsetraut Hadot ist eine Studie \u00fcber die Existenz und den Ursprung des B\u00f6sen, ein Thema, das im Encheiridion des Epiktet seinen Platz findet. Hadot zeigt, dass Simplikios mit Epiktet in der Ablehnung des ontologischen Charakters des B\u00f6sen \u00fcbereinstimmt, da die Natur des B\u00f6sen keinen Platz in der Welt hat, und er verwendet auch stoische Argumente, die auch im Neuplatonismus und im Christentum verwendet werden, um das Thema zu behandeln. Simplikios argumentiert gegen das manich\u00e4ische System mit einem polemischen Ton, der den polemischen Werken anderer Autoren gegen die Manich\u00e4er \u00e4hnelt. Simplikios h\u00e4lt die gr\u00fcndliche Widerlegung des manich\u00e4ischen Systems f\u00fcr notwendig, insbesondere seit dem Wiederaufleben der Manich\u00e4er im byzantinischen Reich. Simplikios' Kommentar soll als Anleitung zur Selbstvervollkommnung dienen, und aus diesem Grund bietet er nicht nur eine umfassende Diskussion \u00fcber den Ursprung des B\u00f6sen, sondern widmet auch einen betr\u00e4chtlichen Teil seines Werks der gr\u00fcndlichen Widerlegung des manich\u00e4ischen Systems. Simplikios st\u00fctzt sich bei seiner Argumentation auf das philosophische System von Proklos und erw\u00e4hnt die Manich\u00e4er nur im zweiten Teil seiner Er\u00f6rterung, in dem er die Hypothese widerlegt, dass das B\u00f6se als Prinzip neben dem Guten angesehen werden kann. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HFw9upuC8f3LCzo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1131,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"51","issue":"1","pages":"31-57"}},"sort":[1969]}
Title | War Platons Vorlesung "das Gute" einmalig? |
Type | Article |
Language | German |
Date | 1968 |
Journal | Hermes |
Volume | 96 |
Issue | 5 |
Pages | 705-709 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Merlan, Philip |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Die Frage wurde kürzlich von K räm er auf Grund einer Sprachanalyse der nunmehr doch wohl jedem an griechischer Philosophie Interessierten wohl- bekannten Aristoxenos-Stelle verneint1. Im folgenden wird versucht werden zu beweisen, daß die Frage zu bejahen ist. [p. 705] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kEzwxu6HwXlp903 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"976","_score":null,"_source":{"id":976,"authors_free":[{"id":1475,"entry_id":976,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":258,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Merlan, Philip","free_first_name":"Philip","free_last_name":"Merlan","norm_person":{"id":258,"first_name":"Philip","last_name":"Merlan","full_name":"Merlan, Philip","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128860502","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"War Platons Vorlesung \"das Gute\" einmalig?","main_title":{"title":"War Platons Vorlesung \"das Gute\" einmalig?"},"abstract":"Die Frage wurde k\u00fcrzlich von K r\u00e4m er auf Grund einer Sprachanalyse der \r\nnunmehr doch wohl jedem an griechischer Philosophie Interessierten wohl- \r\nbekannten Aristoxenos-Stelle verneint1. Im folgenden wird versucht werden \r\nzu beweisen, da\u00df die Frage zu bejahen ist. [p. 705]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kEzwxu6HwXlp903","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":258,"full_name":"Merlan, Philip","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":976,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"96","issue":"5","pages":"705-709"}},"sort":[1968]}
Title | Parmenides, Fragment 10 |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1968 |
Journal | Hermes |
Volume | 96 |
Issue | 4 |
Pages | 629-631 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bicknell, Peter J. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2uPg3j4nE0Tu1v1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1124","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1124,"authors_free":[{"id":1700,"entry_id":1124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10"},"abstract":"This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2uPg3j4nE0Tu1v1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1124,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"96","issue":"4","pages":"629-631"}},"sort":[1968]}
Title | The Manuscript Tradition of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1968 |
Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
Volume | 18 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 70-75 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Coxon, Allan D. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The critical text of the first four books of Simplicius’ commentary on the Physics, which was published by Diels in Berlin in 1882 and serves as the foundation for the text of many fragments of the Presocratics, was based on collations by Vitelli of three manuscripts (DEF) and of a fragment of Book I in a copy made by the scribe of E, which Diels refers to as Ea. Besides these, Diels lists a considerable number of later manuscripts, which I have examined and found justifiably ignored in his critical apparatus. The total number of manuscripts listed by Diels of some part of Books I-VIII is 44; a further 25 not mentioned by Diels are listed in A. Wartelle’s "Inventaire des manuscrits grecs d’Aristote et de ses commentateurs" (Belles Lettres, 1963). I shall argue that Diels seriously underrated both the value of F and the probability of contamination between his manuscripts, and consequently, his text of some fragments of the Presocratics rests on a false foundation. However, it should be said at the outset that Diels’s understanding of Presocratic thought prevented him from going far wrong in the readings he adopted and printed. [Introduction, p. 70] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HfdVbtSYTkutnV9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1283","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1283,"authors_free":[{"id":1872,"entry_id":1283,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":57,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coxon, Allan D.","free_first_name":"Allan D. ","free_last_name":"Coxon","norm_person":{"id":57,"first_name":"Allan D.","last_name":"Coxon","full_name":"Coxon, Allan D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1053041829","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Manuscript Tradition of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv","main_title":{"title":"The Manuscript Tradition of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv"},"abstract":"The critical text of the first four books of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Physics, which was published by Diels in Berlin in 1882 and serves as the foundation for the text of many fragments of the Presocratics, was based on collations by Vitelli of three manuscripts (DEF) and of a fragment of Book I in a copy made by the scribe of E, which Diels refers to as Ea. Besides these, Diels lists a considerable number of later manuscripts, which I have examined and found justifiably ignored in his critical apparatus. The total number of manuscripts listed by Diels of some part of Books I-VIII is 44; a further 25 not mentioned by Diels are listed in A. Wartelle\u2019s \"Inventaire des manuscrits grecs d\u2019Aristote et de ses commentateurs\" (Belles Lettres, 1963). I shall argue that Diels seriously underrated both the value of F and the probability of contamination between his manuscripts, and consequently, his text of some fragments of the Presocratics rests on a false foundation. However, it should be said at the outset that Diels\u2019s understanding of Presocratic thought prevented him from going far wrong in the readings he adopted and printed. [Introduction, p. 70]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HfdVbtSYTkutnV9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":57,"full_name":"Coxon, Allan D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1283,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"18","issue":"1","pages":"70-75 "}},"sort":[1968]}
Title | Aristote, «De la prière» |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1967 |
Journal | Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger |
Volume | 157 |
Pages | 59-70 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Pépin, Jean |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Au nombre des Aristotelis fragmenta figure un bref témoignage de Simplicius, selon lequel Aristote, sur la fin de son livre Περ ευχής, aurait dit que Dieu est ou bien intellect, ou bien quelque chose au-delà de l'intellect, ὃτι ό θεός ή νους εστίν ή καΐ έπέκεινά τι του νου. Simplicius est le seul auteur à rapporter cette surprenante doxographie, et même à évoquer le contenu de cet écrit aristotélicien. Son témoignage étant ainsi l'unique point de départ, on doit avant tout l'examiner de très près, en lui adjoignant les quelques lignes qui le précèdent. Cette investigation permettra peut-être d'en évaluer les chances d'authenticité. Il restera alors à s'interroger sur le sens exact de la doctrine ainsi rapportée à Aristote. [Introduction, p. 59] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SE4b7Gg647e99Gx |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1089","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1089,"authors_free":[{"id":1647,"entry_id":1089,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote, \u00abDe la pri\u00e8re\u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Aristote, \u00abDe la pri\u00e8re\u00bb"},"abstract":"Au nombre des Aristotelis fragmenta figure un bref t\u00e9moignage de Simplicius, selon lequel Aristote, sur la fin de son livre \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03c2, aurait dit que Dieu est ou bien intellect, ou bien quelque chose au-del\u00e0 de l'intellect, \u1f43\u03c4\u03b9 \u03cc \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u03ae \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd \u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u0390 \u03ad\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. Simplicius est le seul auteur \u00e0 rapporter cette surprenante doxographie, et m\u00eame \u00e0 \u00e9voquer le contenu de cet \u00e9crit aristot\u00e9licien. Son t\u00e9moignage \u00e9tant ainsi l'unique point de d\u00e9part, on doit avant tout l'examiner de tr\u00e8s pr\u00e8s, en lui adjoignant les quelques lignes qui le pr\u00e9c\u00e8dent. Cette investigation permettra peut-\u00eatre d'en \u00e9valuer les chances d'authenticit\u00e9. Il restera alors \u00e0 s'interroger sur le sens exact de la doctrine ainsi rapport\u00e9e \u00e0 Aristote. [Introduction, p. 59]","btype":3,"date":"1967","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SE4b7Gg647e99Gx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1089,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'\u00c9tranger","volume":"157","issue":"","pages":"59-70"}},"sort":[1967]}
Title | Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1967 |
Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
Volume | 17 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 29-40 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | O'Brien, Denis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Hitherto reconstructions of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle have usually been offered as part of a larger work, a complete history of Presocratic thought, or a complete study of Empedocles. Consequently there has perhaps been a lack of thoroughness in collecting and sifting evidence that relates exclusively to the main features of the cosmic cycle. There is in fact probably more evidence for Empedocles’ main views than for those of any other Presocratic except Parmenides in his Way of Truth. From a close examination of the fragments and of the secondary sources, principally Aristotle, Plutarch, and Simplicius, there can be formed a reasonably complete picture of the main temporal and spatial features of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle. [Introduction, p. 29] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V0ZiYaivjBF7p8f |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"865","_score":null,"_source":{"id":865,"authors_free":[{"id":1269,"entry_id":865,"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":"Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle"},"abstract":"Hitherto reconstructions of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle have usually been offered as part of a larger work, a complete history of Presocratic thought, or \r\na complete study of Empedocles. Consequently there has perhaps been a lack of thoroughness in collecting and sifting evidence that relates exclusively to the main features of the cosmic cycle. There is in fact probably more evidence \r\nfor Empedocles\u2019 main views than for those of any other Presocratic except Parmenides in his Way of Truth. From a close examination of the fragments \r\nand of the secondary sources, principally Aristotle, Plutarch, and Simplicius, there can be formed a reasonably complete picture of the main temporal and spatial features of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle. [Introduction, p. 29]","btype":3,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V0ZiYaivjBF7p8f","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":865,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"17","issue":"1","pages":"29-40"}},"sort":[1967]}
Title | Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1967 |
Journal | Phronesis |
Volume | 12 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 1-5 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bicknell, Peter J. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
It is commonly maintained that Melissus was the major forerunner of atomism. This has been argued on a number of grounds, one of these being that Leucippus reacted to a Melissean rather than a Parmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I shall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other argument for Melissus' influence on atomism insecure, but that Theo- phrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that Leucippus opposed a pre-Melissean eleaticism. [p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HVrwO25mQS4JsxM |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"772","_score":null,"_source":{"id":772,"authors_free":[{"id":1136,"entry_id":772,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication"},"abstract":"It is commonly maintained that Melissus was the major forerunner \r\nof atomism. This has been argued on a number of grounds, one of \r\nthese being that Leucippus reacted to a Melissean rather than a \r\nParmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I \r\nshall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other \r\nargument for Melissus' influence on atomism insecure, but that Theo- \r\nphrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that \r\nLeucippus opposed a pre-Melissean eleaticism. [p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HVrwO25mQS4JsxM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":772,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"12","issue":"1","pages":"1-5"}},"sort":[1967]}
Title | The End of the Ancient Universities |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1966 |
Journal | Journal of World History |
Volume | 10 |
Pages | 653-673 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cameron, Alan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Strictliy speaking, there were no universities in the Ancient World,if by university we understand a corporate institution offering avariety of courses and granting degrees in the way modern univer sities do. There were, however, university towns, Rome, Constantinople, Athens, Alexandria, Bordeaux, with established chairs, where the leading teachers of the day lectured to classes drawn from all over the Empire. And so many of the ideas we associate with a university were both present and fostered in this atmosphere, that it would clearly he pedantic to avoid using the term. But there were significant differences nonetheless.Not least, each professor in these university towns was independent of, and indeed a rival of, every other professor there. In every city of the Empire except Constantinople, and not there till 425, it was possible for freelance teachers to set up in opposition lo holders of the established chairs (and sometimes entice away their pupils, too). Even holders of the chairs competed with each other for pupils. It was normal for students to sign on with just one professor, and attend his courses alone. Indeed, the rivalry between professors was transmitted to their pupils. Up to a point competion was natural and healthy enough. But by the period that forms the subject of this paper, the fourth to sixth centuries A.D., it far exceeded that point, and cannot but have impaired both the proficiency and the standing of the profession. [Introduction, pp. 653 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/atNV1VbXvQJ1nCM |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1048","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1048,"authors_free":[{"id":1593,"entry_id":1048,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":20,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cameron, Alan","free_first_name":"Alan","free_last_name":"Cameron","norm_person":{"id":20,"first_name":"Alan","last_name":"Cameron","full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143568914","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The End of the Ancient Universities","main_title":{"title":"The End of the Ancient Universities"},"abstract":"Strictliy speaking, there were no universities in the Ancient World,if by university we understand a corporate institution offering avariety of courses and granting degrees in the way modern univer\u00ad\r\nsities do.\r\nThere were, however, university towns, Rome, Constantinople, \r\nAthens, Alexandria, Bordeaux, with established chairs, where the leading \r\nteachers of the day lectured to classes drawn from all over the Empire. \r\nAnd so many of the ideas we associate with a university were both present \r\nand fostered in this atmosphere, that it would clearly he pedantic to avoid \r\nusing the term. But there were significant differences nonetheless.Not least, each professor in these university towns was independent \r\nof, and indeed a rival of, every other professor there. In every city of the \r\nEmpire except Constantinople, and not there till 425, it was possible for \r\nfreelance teachers to set up in opposition lo holders of the established \r\nchairs (and sometimes entice away their pupils, too). Even holders of the \r\nchairs competed with each other for pupils. It was normal for students to \r\nsign on with just one professor, and attend his courses alone. Indeed, the \r\nrivalry between professors was transmitted to their pupils. Up to a point competion was natural and healthy enough. But by the period that\r\nforms the subject of this paper, the fourth to sixth centuries A.D., it\r\nfar exceeded that point, and cannot but have impaired both the \r\nproficiency and the standing of the profession. [Introduction, pp. 653 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1966","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/atNV1VbXvQJ1nCM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1048,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of World History","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"653-673"}},"sort":["The End of the Ancient Universities"]}
Title | The Framework of Greek Cosmology |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1961 |
Journal | The Review of Metaphysics |
Volume | 14 |
Issue | 4 |
Pages | 676-684 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Robinson, John |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The treatises which form the Hippocratic Corpus are not the work of a single individual, and there is abundant evidence that they were itten over a period of at least two hundred years. It is, there ore, essential, in attempting to reconstruct the scientific world view of the early period, that we rely so far as possible on treatises belonging to this period. Unfortunately, in the present state of Hippocratic studies, it is impossible to date these works with any exactitude. On the other hand, certain of them belong pretty clearly to the fifth century; and it seems fairly well established that the view of the constitution of man which most of them assume dates from the time of Alcmaeon, who flourished around the turn of the century. Since this view is based upon an analogy between microcosm and macrocosm, the processes involved in sickness and health reflect on a small scale the greater processes which constitute the life of the cosmos as a whole; thus, indirectly, these treatises illuminate in striking ways aspects of the larger world-view implicit in the fragments of the early cosmologists, but obscured by the fewness of these fragments and the imperfect state in which they have been preserved. In the present study they are used to illuminate just such obscurities. [pp. 676 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zGcRmbkt0tSeZdr |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"857","_score":null,"_source":{"id":857,"authors_free":[{"id":1261,"entry_id":857,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":304,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Robinson, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":304,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Robinson","full_name":"Robinson, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Framework of Greek Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"The Framework of Greek Cosmology"},"abstract":"The treatises which form the Hippocratic Corpus are not the work of \r\na single individual, and there is abundant evidence that they were itten over a period of at least two hundred years. It is, there ore, essential, in attempting to reconstruct the scientific world \r\nview of the early period, that we rely so far as possible on treatises \r\nbelonging to this period. Unfortunately, in the present state of \r\nHippocratic studies, it is impossible to date these works with any \r\nexactitude. On the other hand, certain of them belong pretty \r\nclearly to the fifth century; and it seems fairly well established that \r\nthe view of the constitution of man which most of them assume \r\ndates from the time of Alcmaeon, who flourished around the turn \r\nof the century. Since this view is based upon an analogy between \r\nmicrocosm and macrocosm, the processes involved in sickness and \r\nhealth reflect on a small scale the greater processes which constitute \r\nthe life of the cosmos as a whole; thus, indirectly, these treatises \r\nilluminate in striking ways aspects of the larger world-view \r\nimplicit in the fragments of the early cosmologists, but obscured \r\nby the fewness of these fragments and the imperfect state in which \r\nthey have been preserved. In the present study they are used to \r\nilluminate just such obscurities. [pp. 676 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1961","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zGcRmbkt0tSeZdr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":304,"full_name":"Robinson, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":857,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"14","issue":"4","pages":"676-684"}},"sort":["The Framework of Greek Cosmology"]}
Title | The Homoiomeries of Anaxagoras |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1927 |
Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
Volume | 21 |
Issue | 3/4 |
Pages | 133-141 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Leon, Philip |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, p. 141]: Anaxagoras does indeed, as he has been said to do, represent the culminating point of the enquiry into the one bto-tv. That simple enquiry for a simple unity becomes curiously complex, just because of the very simplicity and the thorough-going and uncompromising nature of Anaxagoras' logical mind. It has with him reached a stage where it must become transformed and pass on the one hand into logic in Plato, into the enquiry about the nature of predication through Gorgias and Antisthenes, and on the other hand into metaphysics, the theory of ideas, also in Plato. This central position of Anaxagoras is made clear by the passage discussed, according to which, I think, in considering the 'homoiomeries,' we should look upon parts as 'homoiomerous' primarily to the whole i~c6otov, and only secondarily to subordinate wholes. Indeed, it is implied in Anaxagoras' principle that there are only two entities which are properly wholes, the 0c0/cpo and voDv^. To call anything else a whole is more or less arbitrary, a principle not unworthy of the most thorough-going of modern absolutists. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FXHNwY19loMmfLj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"733","_score":null,"_source":{"id":733,"authors_free":[{"id":1096,"entry_id":733,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":245,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Leon, Philip","free_first_name":"Philip","free_last_name":"Leon","norm_person":{"id":245,"first_name":"Philip","last_name":"Leon","full_name":"Leon, Philip","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Homoiomeries of Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"The Homoiomeries of Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 141]: Anaxagoras does indeed, as he has been said to do, represent the \r\nculminating point of the enquiry into the one bto-tv. That simple enquiry \r\nfor a simple unity becomes curiously complex, just because of the very \r\nsimplicity and the thorough-going and uncompromising nature of Anaxagoras' \r\nlogical mind. It has with him reached a stage where it must become \r\ntransformed and pass on the one hand into logic in Plato, into the enquiry \r\nabout the nature of predication through Gorgias and Antisthenes, and on the \r\nother hand into metaphysics, the theory of ideas, also in Plato. This central \r\nposition of Anaxagoras is made clear by the passage discussed, according \r\nto which, I think, in considering the 'homoiomeries,' we should look upon \r\nparts as 'homoiomerous' primarily to the whole i~c6otov, and only secondarily \r\nto subordinate wholes. Indeed, it is implied in Anaxagoras' principle that \r\nthere are only two entities which are properly wholes, the 0c0\/cpo and voDv^. To call anything else a whole is more or less arbitrary, a principle not \r\nunworthy of the most thorough-going of modern absolutists. ","btype":3,"date":"1927","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FXHNwY19loMmfLj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":245,"full_name":"Leon, Philip","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":733,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"21","issue":"3\/4","pages":"133-141"}},"sort":["The Homoiomeries of Anaxagoras"]}
Title | The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1979 |
Journal | The Monist |
Volume | 62 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 30–42 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bormann, Karl |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seeming were—as is well known—interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem.Regarding the one being, there are four attempts of explanation to be distinguished: (1) The being is material; (2) the being is immaterial; (3) it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a modal category; (4) it is the entity of being ("Sein des Seienden"). This latter interpretation, if we can call it an interpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as (1) a more or less critical demography; (2) a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; (3) a systematic unit together with the First part, the aletheia. We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately; in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already expressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. [Introduction, p. 30] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aBW4ltQsoGBiCRv |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1078","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1078,"authors_free":[{"id":1634,"entry_id":1078,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":11,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bormann, Karl ","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Bormann","norm_person":{"id":11,"first_name":"Karl ","last_name":"Bormann","full_name":"Bormann, Karl ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119138816","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius"},"abstract":"The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seeming were\u2014as is well known\u2014interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem.Regarding the one being, there are four attempts of explanation to be distinguished: (1) The being is material; (2) the being is immaterial; (3) it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a modal category; (4) it is the entity of being (\"Sein des Seienden\"). This latter interpretation, if we can call it an interpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as (1) a more or less critical demography; (2) a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; (3) a systematic unit together with the First part, the aletheia. We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately; in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already expressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. [Introduction, p. 30]","btype":3,"date":"1979","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aBW4ltQsoGBiCRv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":11,"full_name":"Bormann, Karl ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1078,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Monist","volume":"62","issue":"1","pages":"30\u201342"}},"sort":["The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius"]}
Title | The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Journal | Quaestiones Disputatae |
Volume | 4 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 99-112 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Susanne Bobzien recently described “the volumes of the Greek commen-tators on Aristotle’s logical works” as “monumental” but “rarely creative.”2 While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien’s assessment obscures the occa- sional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one example here—the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle’s ten categories. [Introduction, p. 99] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bClvt0NZom2Tgsr |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"918","_score":null,"_source":{"id":918,"authors_free":[{"id":1357,"entry_id":918,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius"},"abstract":"Susanne Bobzien recently described \u201cthe volumes of the Greek commen-tators on Aristotle\u2019s logical works\u201d as \u201cmonumental\u201d but \u201crarely creative.\u201d2 While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien\u2019s assessment obscures the occa-\r\nsional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one example here\u2014the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers \r\ngave for Aristotle\u2019s ten categories. [Introduction, p. 99]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bClvt0NZom2Tgsr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":918,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"4","issue":"2","pages":"99-112"}},"sort":["The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius"]}
Title | The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Journal | Ancient World |
Volume | 33 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 45–69 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Walker, Joel Thomas |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cNwfGbbhpYWUoRe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"446","_score":null,"_source":{"id":446,"authors_free":[{"id":598,"entry_id":446,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":355,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","free_first_name":"Joel Thomas","free_last_name":"Walker","norm_person":{"id":355,"first_name":"Joel Thomas","last_name":"Walker","full_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131718118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran","main_title":{"title":"The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cNwfGbbhpYWUoRe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":355,"full_name":"Walker, Joel Thomas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":446,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient World","volume":"33","issue":"1","pages":"45\u201369"}},"sort":["The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran"]}
Title | The Manuscript Tradition of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1968 |
Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
Volume | 18 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 70-75 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Coxon, Allan D. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The critical text of the first four books of Simplicius’ commentary on the Physics, which was published by Diels in Berlin in 1882 and serves as the foundation for the text of many fragments of the Presocratics, was based on collations by Vitelli of three manuscripts (DEF) and of a fragment of Book I in a copy made by the scribe of E, which Diels refers to as Ea. Besides these, Diels lists a considerable number of later manuscripts, which I have examined and found justifiably ignored in his critical apparatus. The total number of manuscripts listed by Diels of some part of Books I-VIII is 44; a further 25 not mentioned by Diels are listed in A. Wartelle’s "Inventaire des manuscrits grecs d’Aristote et de ses commentateurs" (Belles Lettres, 1963). I shall argue that Diels seriously underrated both the value of F and the probability of contamination between his manuscripts, and consequently, his text of some fragments of the Presocratics rests on a false foundation. However, it should be said at the outset that Diels’s understanding of Presocratic thought prevented him from going far wrong in the readings he adopted and printed. [Introduction, p. 70] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HfdVbtSYTkutnV9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1283","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1283,"authors_free":[{"id":1872,"entry_id":1283,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":57,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coxon, Allan D.","free_first_name":"Allan D. ","free_last_name":"Coxon","norm_person":{"id":57,"first_name":"Allan D.","last_name":"Coxon","full_name":"Coxon, Allan D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1053041829","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Manuscript Tradition of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv","main_title":{"title":"The Manuscript Tradition of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv"},"abstract":"The critical text of the first four books of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Physics, which was published by Diels in Berlin in 1882 and serves as the foundation for the text of many fragments of the Presocratics, was based on collations by Vitelli of three manuscripts (DEF) and of a fragment of Book I in a copy made by the scribe of E, which Diels refers to as Ea. Besides these, Diels lists a considerable number of later manuscripts, which I have examined and found justifiably ignored in his critical apparatus. The total number of manuscripts listed by Diels of some part of Books I-VIII is 44; a further 25 not mentioned by Diels are listed in A. Wartelle\u2019s \"Inventaire des manuscrits grecs d\u2019Aristote et de ses commentateurs\" (Belles Lettres, 1963). I shall argue that Diels seriously underrated both the value of F and the probability of contamination between his manuscripts, and consequently, his text of some fragments of the Presocratics rests on a false foundation. However, it should be said at the outset that Diels\u2019s understanding of Presocratic thought prevented him from going far wrong in the readings he adopted and printed. [Introduction, p. 70]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HfdVbtSYTkutnV9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":57,"full_name":"Coxon, Allan D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1283,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"18","issue":"1","pages":"70-75 "}},"sort":["The Manuscript Tradition of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv"]}
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":["The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1"]}
Title | The Neoplatonic One and Plato’s Parmenides |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1962 |
Journal | Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association |
Volume | 93 |
Pages | 389–401 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rist, John M. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
As long ago as 1928 Professor E. R. Dodds' demonstrated the dependence of the One of Plotinus on an interpretation of the first hypothesis of the Parmenides. His demonstration has been universally accepted. But Dodds not only showed the depen- dence of Plotinus on the Parmenides but also offered an account of the history of the doctrine of the One between the late fourth century B.C. and the third century A.D. His view is that the first three hypotheses of the Parmenides were already treated in what we should call a Neoplatonic fashion by Moderatus, a Neo- pythagorean of the second half of the first century A.D.; further, that Moderatus was not the originator of this interpretation, whose origins can in fact be traced back through Eudorus (ca. 25 B.C.) and the Neopythagoreans of his day to the Old Academy. Though Dodds is somewhat unclear at this point,2 he seems to suggest that already before the time of Eudorus the Parmenides was being interpreted in Neopythagorean fashion. In order to check this derivation, we should look at the three stages of it in detail. These stages are the Neopythagoreanism of Moderatus, the theories of Eudorus, and those of Speusippus and the Old Academy in general. [p. 389] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RfxQJVrvnsxJSva |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1058","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1058,"authors_free":[{"id":1607,"entry_id":1058,"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 Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides"},"abstract":"As long ago as 1928 Professor E. R. Dodds' demonstrated the \r\ndependence of the One of Plotinus on an interpretation of the \r\nfirst hypothesis of the Parmenides. His demonstration has been \r\nuniversally accepted. But Dodds not only showed the depen- \r\ndence of Plotinus on the Parmenides but also offered an account \r\nof the history of the doctrine of the One between the late fourth \r\ncentury B.C. and the third century A.D. His view is that the first \r\nthree hypotheses of the Parmenides were already treated in what \r\nwe should call a Neoplatonic fashion by Moderatus, a Neo- \r\npythagorean of the second half of the first century A.D.; further, \r\nthat Moderatus was not the originator of this interpretation, \r\nwhose origins can in fact be traced back through Eudorus \r\n(ca. 25 B.C.) and the Neopythagoreans of his day to the Old \r\nAcademy. Though Dodds is somewhat unclear at this point,2 \r\nhe seems to suggest that already before the time of Eudorus the \r\nParmenides was being interpreted in Neopythagorean fashion. \r\nIn order to check this derivation, we should look at the three \r\nstages of it in detail. These stages are the Neopythagoreanism \r\nof Moderatus, the theories of Eudorus, and those of Speusippus \r\nand the Old Academy in general. [p. 389]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RfxQJVrvnsxJSva","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":303,"full_name":"Rist, John M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1058,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"389\u2013401"}},"sort":["The Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides"]}
Title | The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One' |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1928 |
Journal | Classical Quarterly |
Volume | 22 |
Issue | 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1928), |
Pages | 129–142 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Dodds, Eric R. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
THE last phase of Greek philosophy has until recently been less intelli- gently studied than any other, and in our understanding of its development there are still lamentable lacunae. Three errors in particular have in the past prevented a proper appreciation of Plotinus' place in the history of philosophy. When this false trail was at length abandoned the fashion for orientalizing explanations persisted in another guise: to the earliest historians of Neo- platonism, Simon and Vacherot, the school of Plotinus was (in defiance of geographical facts) 'the school of Alexandria,' and its inspiration was mainly Egyptian. Vacherot says of Neoplatonism that it is 'essentially and radically oriental, having nothing of Greek thought but its language and procedure.' Few would be found to-day to subscribe to so sweeping a pronouncement; but the existence of an important oriental element in Plotinus' thought is still affirmed by many French and German writers. [p. 129] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ElUfvVkaaeLIJVk |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"554","_score":null,"_source":{"id":554,"authors_free":[{"id":783,"entry_id":554,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":65,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dodds, Eric R. ","free_first_name":"Eric R. ","free_last_name":"Dodds","norm_person":{"id":65,"first_name":"Eric R. ","last_name":"Dodds","full_name":"Dodds, Eric R. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123026288","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One' ","main_title":{"title":"The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One' "},"abstract":"THE last phase of Greek philosophy has until recently been less intelli- \r\ngently studied than any other, and in our understanding of its development \r\nthere are still lamentable lacunae. Three errors in particular have in the past \r\nprevented a proper appreciation of Plotinus' place in the history of philosophy. When this false trail was at length abandoned the fashion for orientalizing \r\nexplanations persisted in another guise: to the earliest historians of Neo- \r\nplatonism, Simon and Vacherot, the school of Plotinus was (in defiance of \r\ngeographical facts) 'the school of Alexandria,' and its inspiration was mainly \r\nEgyptian. Vacherot says of Neoplatonism that it is 'essentially and radically \r\noriental, having nothing of Greek thought but its language and procedure.' \r\nFew would be found to-day to subscribe to so sweeping a pronouncement; but \r\nthe existence of an important oriental element in Plotinus' thought is still \r\naffirmed by many French and German writers. [p. 129]","btype":3,"date":"1928","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ElUfvVkaaeLIJVk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":65,"full_name":"Dodds, Eric R. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":554,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Quarterly","volume":"22","issue":"3\/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1928),","pages":"129\u2013142"}},"sort":["The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One' "]}