| 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":[1966]}
| Title | Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-148 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Solmsen, Friedrich |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.] our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- struction of a dual cosmogony in his "cycle", originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further inferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text book which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- mogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"846","_score":null,"_source":{"id":846,"authors_free":[{"id":1250,"entry_id":846,"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":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"},"abstract":"In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent \r\nas long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or \r\ngroups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is \r\nworked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to \r\nadmit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an \r\nalternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von \r\nArnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a \r\ngood purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly \r\ngrounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.]\r\nour interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and \r\nrevisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large \r\nhypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now \r\nnear the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- \r\nstruction of a dual cosmogony in his \"cycle\", originally a theory which \r\nhad to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, \r\ntreated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further \r\ninferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which \r\nbacks up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the \r\nmerits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since \r\nits publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the \r\nrelative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of \r\nAristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital \r\nbearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text \r\nbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- \r\nmogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":846,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"109-148"}},"sort":[1965]}
| Title | A Lost Passage from Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic Translation |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Oriental Society |
| Volume | 85 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 318-327 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kraemer, Joel L. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In view of Philoponus' achievement, the loss of the Contra Aristotelem is, to say the least, regret- table. Fortunately, extracts from the work are preserved in the commentaries on the Physica and the De caelo of Philoponus' pagan philosophi- cal opponent, Simplicius, which provide a fair sampling of the drift of the argument.9 Also, there is reason to believe that the Contra Aristotelem was known to the medieval Arabs... [p. 320] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GlgWKDL2kQWNuuf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"735","_score":null,"_source":{"id":735,"authors_free":[{"id":1098,"entry_id":735,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":220,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kraemer, Joel L.","free_first_name":"Joel, L.","free_last_name":"Kraemer","norm_person":{"id":220,"first_name":"Joel L.","last_name":"Kraemer","full_name":"Kraemer, Joel L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113182023","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Lost Passage from Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic Translation","main_title":{"title":"A Lost Passage from Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic Translation"},"abstract":"In view of Philoponus' achievement, the loss of \r\nthe Contra Aristotelem is, to say the least, regret- \r\ntable. Fortunately, extracts from the work are \r\npreserved in the commentaries on the Physica \r\nand the De caelo of Philoponus' pagan philosophi- \r\ncal opponent, Simplicius, which provide a fair \r\nsampling of the drift of the argument.9 Also, there \r\nis reason to believe that the Contra Aristotelem \r\nwas known to the medieval Arabs... [p. 320]","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GlgWKDL2kQWNuuf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":220,"full_name":"Kraemer, Joel L.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":735,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the American Oriental Society","volume":"85","issue":"3","pages":"318-327"}},"sort":[1965]}
| Title | Weltzeiten und Lebenszyklus: Eine Nachprüfung der Empedokles-Doxographie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 93 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 7-33 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hölscher, Uvo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Der Text untersucht die Lehre des griechischen Philosophen Empedokles über die periodischen Entstehungs- und Vergehenszyklen der Welt. Es wird diskutiert, dass es bisher keine Einigkeit darüber gibt, wie diese Zyklen im Detail zu verstehen sind. Eine verbreitete Auffassung besagt, dass sich der Zyklus in vier Phasen abspielt, in denen sich jeweils eine Welt bildet, die durch Trennungs- und Vereinigungsprozesse der Elemente entstehen und vergehen. Es wird jedoch argumentiert, dass diese Vorstellung widersprüchlich ist und es keine klare Entscheidung darüber gibt, welche Phase die aktuelle Welt repräsentiert. Der Autor kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Vorstellung von nur vier Phasen nicht ausreichend ist und dass die Vorstellung eines Ruhezustands der getrennten Elemente unzureichend belegt ist. Stattdessen schlägt der Autor vor, dass es nur zwei Phasen gibt, in denen sich die Kosmogonie und Zoogonie ereignen. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3i3dIX2FiiNPQoT |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1353","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1353,"authors_free":[{"id":2027,"entry_id":1353,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":198,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"H\u00f6lscher, Uvo","free_first_name":"Uvo","free_last_name":"H\u00f6lscher","norm_person":{"id":198,"first_name":"Uvo","last_name":"H\u00f6lscher","full_name":"H\u00f6lscher, Uvo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118705571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Weltzeiten und Lebenszyklus: Eine Nachpr\u00fcfung der Empedokles-Doxographie","main_title":{"title":"Weltzeiten und Lebenszyklus: Eine Nachpr\u00fcfung der Empedokles-Doxographie"},"abstract":"Der Text untersucht die Lehre des griechischen Philosophen Empedokles \u00fcber die periodischen Entstehungs- und Vergehenszyklen der Welt. Es wird diskutiert, dass es bisher keine Einigkeit dar\u00fcber gibt, wie diese Zyklen im Detail zu verstehen sind. Eine verbreitete Auffassung besagt, dass sich der Zyklus in vier Phasen abspielt, in denen sich jeweils eine Welt bildet, die durch Trennungs- und Vereinigungsprozesse der Elemente entstehen und vergehen. Es wird jedoch argumentiert, dass diese Vorstellung widerspr\u00fcchlich ist und es keine klare Entscheidung dar\u00fcber gibt, welche Phase die aktuelle Welt repr\u00e4sentiert. Der Autor kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Vorstellung von nur vier Phasen nicht ausreichend ist und dass die Vorstellung eines Ruhezustands der getrennten Elemente unzureichend belegt ist. Stattdessen schl\u00e4gt der Autor vor, dass es nur zwei Phasen gibt, in denen sich die Kosmogonie und Zoogonie ereignen. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3i3dIX2FiiNPQoT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":198,"full_name":"H\u00f6lscher, Uvo","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1353,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"93","issue":"1","pages":"7-33"}},"sort":[1965]}
| Title | Empedocles fr. 35. 14-15 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-4 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | O'Brien, Denis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This text discusses the interpretation of the word "zôros" in a couplet attributed to Empedocles, as quoted by various ancient authors such as Plutarch, Simplicius, Theophrastus, Aristotle, Athenaeus, and Eustathius. The author considers the different meanings attributed to the word, including mixed and unmixed, and argues that the context and source of the quotations must be considered in interpreting the couplet. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/i3e86dj5n6bGM5G |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1376","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1376,"authors_free":[{"id":2120,"entry_id":1376,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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 fr. 35. 14-15","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles fr. 35. 14-15"},"abstract":"This text discusses the interpretation of the word \"z\u00f4ros\" in a couplet attributed to Empedocles, as quoted by various ancient authors such as Plutarch, Simplicius, Theophrastus, Aristotle, Athenaeus, and Eustathius. The author considers the different meanings attributed to the word, including mixed and unmixed, and argues that the context and source of the quotations must be considered in interpreting the couplet. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i3e86dj5n6bGM5G","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1376,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"15","issue":"1","pages":"1-4"}},"sort":[1965]}
| Title | Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1964 |
| Journal | Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |
| Volume | 9 |
| Pages | 59-72 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwabl, Hans |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| ANAXIMANDERZU DEN QUELLEN UND SEINER EINORDNUNG IM VORS OKRATISCHEN DENKEN. Hans Schwabl Die alten Milesier können erst nach einiger kritischer Vorarbeit Ge genstand begriffsgeschichtlicher Forschung sein. Der Anfang der grie chischen Philosophie ist uns ja nur durch die Berichte Späterer überliefert und aus dem Blickwinkel einer Problemstellung, die nicht mehr die der ersten Philosophen ist. So scheint der Versuch, die Eigenart der milesischen Philosophie zu bestimmen, zunächst so gut wie aussichtslos, insbesondere wenn man bedenkt, daß nicht einmal die eigentliche Quelle unserer Nach richten, das Werk Theophrasts, uns als solche überkommen ist, sondern daß wir auch hier erst rekonstruieren müssen.Der Anfang muß also sein, zu erforschen, was Theophrast gesagt und gemeint hat. Erst dann stellt sich die Aufgabe einer Rückübersetzung sei ner Berichte ins Archaische. Diese Rückübersetzung ist nur möglich inner halb einer entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Linie, die von den Früheren zu den Milesiern1) und von diesen wieder zu den späteren Vorsokratikern2) zu ziehen ist. In unserer kurzen Skizze kann das dafür schon Geleistete bzw. noch zu Leistende nur angedeutet werden. Wir beschränken uns außerdem auf Anaximander, einmal wegen der besonderen Stellung, die ihm zukommt, dann aber auch wegen der Quellenlage, die, wenn man sie nur recht einzuschätzen weiß, doch einigermaßen tragfähige Schlüsse auf den Ansatzpunkt und die Eigenart dieses frühen Denkers gestattet. [pp. 59 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TtvN2KY9lnbgZdC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1031","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1031,"authors_free":[{"id":1561,"entry_id":1031,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":288,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwabl, Hans","free_first_name":"Hans","free_last_name":"Schwabl","norm_person":{"id":288,"first_name":"Hans","last_name":"Schwabl","full_name":"Schwabl, Hans","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107871211","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken"},"abstract":"ANAXIMANDERZU DEN QUELLEN UND SEINER EINORDNUNG \r\nIM VORS OKRATISCHEN DENKEN.\r\nHans Schwabl\r\nDie alten Milesier k\u00f6nnen erst nach einiger kritischer Vorarbeit Ge\u00ad\r\ngenstand begriffsgeschichtlicher Forschung sein. Der Anfang der grie\u00ad\r\nchischen Philosophie ist uns ja nur durch die Berichte Sp\u00e4terer \u00fcberliefert \r\nund aus dem Blickwinkel einer Problemstellung, die nicht mehr die der \r\nersten Philosophen ist. So scheint der Versuch, die Eigenart der milesischen \r\nPhilosophie zu bestimmen, zun\u00e4chst so gut wie aussichtslos, insbesondere \r\nwenn man bedenkt, da\u00df nicht einmal die eigentliche Quelle unserer Nach\u00ad\r\nrichten, das Werk Theophrasts, uns als solche \u00fcberkommen ist, sondern \r\nda\u00df wir auch hier erst rekonstruieren m\u00fcssen.Der Anfang mu\u00df also sein, zu erforschen, was Theophrast gesagt und \r\ngemeint hat. Erst dann stellt sich die Aufgabe einer R\u00fcck\u00fcbersetzung sei\u00ad\r\nner Berichte ins Archaische. Diese R\u00fcck\u00fcbersetzung ist nur m\u00f6glich inner\u00ad\r\nhalb einer entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Linie, die von den Fr\u00fcheren zu \r\nden Milesiern1) und von diesen wieder zu den sp\u00e4teren Vorsokratikern2) \r\nzu ziehen ist. In unserer kurzen Skizze kann das daf\u00fcr schon Geleistete \r\nbzw. noch zu Leistende nur angedeutet werden. Wir beschr\u00e4nken uns \r\nau\u00dferdem auf Anaximander, einmal wegen der besonderen Stellung, die \r\nihm zukommt, dann aber auch wegen der Quellenlage, die, wenn man sie nur recht einzusch\u00e4tzen wei\u00df, doch einigerma\u00dfen tragf\u00e4hige Schl\u00fcsse auf \r\nden Ansatzpunkt und die Eigenart dieses fr\u00fchen Denkers gestattet. [pp. 59 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1964","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TtvN2KY9lnbgZdC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":288,"full_name":"Schwabl, Hans","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1031,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"59-72"}},"sort":[1964]}
| Title | The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1962 |
| Journal | Dumbarton Oaks Papers |
| Volume | 16 |
| Pages | 65-93 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wolfson, Harry Austryn |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Kepler, who, as we all know, lived under the new heaven created by Copernicus, discusses the question whether the planets are moved by Intelligences or by souls or by nature. His consideration of Intelligences as possible movers of the planets refers to a view held by those who in the Middle Ages lived under the old Ptolemaic heaven, the term Intelligences being, by a complexity of miscegenation, a descendant of what Aristotle describes as incorporeal substances. His consideration of souls or nature as possible movers of the planets touches upon a topic which was made into a problem b y the Byzantine Greek commentators of Aristotle.In this paper I shall try to show how the Byzantine commentators, in their study of the text of Aristotle, were confronted with a certain problem, how they solved that problem, and how their solution of that problem led to other problems and solutions, all of which lingered in philosophic literature down to Kepler. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/M4I0x6wRyI5xwdf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"422","_score":null,"_source":{"id":422,"authors_free":[{"id":565,"entry_id":422,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":412,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","free_first_name":"Harry Austryn","free_last_name":"Wolfson","norm_person":{"id":412,"first_name":"Harry Austryn","last_name":"Wolfson","full_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123348323","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler","main_title":{"title":"The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler"},"abstract":"Kepler, who, as we all know, lived under the new heaven created by Copernicus, discusses the question whether the planets are moved by Intelligences or by souls or by nature. His consideration of Intelligences \r\nas possible movers of the planets refers to a view held by those who in the Middle Ages lived under the old Ptolemaic heaven, the term Intelligences being, by a complexity of miscegenation, a descendant of what Aristotle describes as \r\nincorporeal substances. His consideration of souls or nature as possible movers of the planets touches upon a topic which was made into a problem b y the \r\nByzantine Greek commentators of Aristotle.In this paper I shall try to show how the Byzantine commentators, in their study of the text of Aristotle, were confronted with a certain problem, how they solved that problem, and how their solution of that problem led to other \r\nproblems and solutions, all of which lingered in philosophic literature down to Kepler. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M4I0x6wRyI5xwdf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":412,"full_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":422,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Dumbarton Oaks Papers","volume":"16","issue":"","pages":"65-93"}},"sort":[1962]}
| 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":[1962]}
| Title | Empedocles, fr. 35. 12-15 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1962 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Arundel, Maureen Rosemary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This text discusses the interpretation and translation of a fragment of Theophrastus and Plutarch. The word "zôros" is of particular concern, as there is difficulty in determining its meaning, with some suggesting it means "mixed" while others argue it means "undiluted." The author suggests that the reading of the Empedocles line should be restored to "zôra" meaning "undiluted" and that the modern interpretation of "mixed" is unjustifiable. The text also examines the use of "zôra" in Philumenus' work and argues that there is no occurrence in which it means "mixed." [whole text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0KVfT1jwCVuVr5m |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1262","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1262,"authors_free":[{"id":1848,"entry_id":1262,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":36,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Arundel, Maureen Rosemary","free_first_name":"Maureen Rosemary","free_last_name":"Arundel","norm_person":{"id":36,"first_name":"Maureen Rosemary","last_name":"Arundel","full_name":"Arundel, Maureen Rosemary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles, fr. 35. 12-15","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles, fr. 35. 12-15"},"abstract":"This text discusses the interpretation and translation of a fragment of Theophrastus and Plutarch. The word \"z\u00f4ros\" is of particular concern, as there is difficulty in determining its meaning, with some suggesting it means \"mixed\" while others argue it means \"undiluted.\" The author suggests that the reading of the Empedocles line should be restored to \"z\u00f4ra\" meaning \"undiluted\" and that the modern interpretation of \"mixed\" is unjustifiable. The text also examines the use of \"z\u00f4ra\" in Philumenus' work and argues that there is no occurrence in which it means \"mixed.\" [whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0KVfT1jwCVuVr5m","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":36,"full_name":"Arundel, Maureen Rosemary","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1262,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"12","issue":"2","pages":"109-111"}},"sort":[1962]}
| 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":[1961]}
| Title | The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Journal | The Review of Metaphysics |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 287-311 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hubler, J. Noel |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle's brief consideration of self-perception engaged in an extensive discussion of the problem, offering various interpretations of apperception from the second to sixth century. The commentators modeled their explanation of self-awareness in perception on their understanding of the nature of knowledge in general and their notion of what the core meaning of truth was. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ef2ZHle0heSuknh |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1354","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1354,"authors_free":[{"id":2028,"entry_id":1354,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":199,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hubler, J. Noel","free_first_name":"J. Noel","free_last_name":"Hubler","norm_person":{"id":199,"first_name":"J. Noel","last_name":"Hubler","full_name":"Hubler, J. Noel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188463461","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle"},"abstract":"The ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle's brief consideration of self-perception engaged in an extensive discussion of the problem, offering various interpretations of apperception from the second to sixth century. The commentators modeled their explanation of self-awareness in perception on their understanding of the nature of knowledge in general and their notion of what the core meaning of truth was. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ef2ZHle0heSuknh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":199,"full_name":"Hubler, J. Noel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1354,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"59","issue":"2","pages":"287-311"}},"sort":["The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Apperception in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle"]}
| Title | The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1985 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series |
| Volume | 86 |
| Pages | 1-22 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xfHHbWNjht9hEhn |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"490","_score":null,"_source":{"id":490,"authors_free":[{"id":671,"entry_id":490,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern","main_title":{"title":"The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xfHHbWNjht9hEhn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":490,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series","volume":"86","issue":"","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":["The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern"]}
| Title | The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Journal | Studia Humaniora Tartuensia |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 1-26 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1UkxbgXu0jAuujr |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1201","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1201,"authors_free":[{"id":1774,"entry_id":1201,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research","main_title":{"title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research"},"abstract":"In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th\u20133rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UkxbgXu0jAuujr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1201,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia Humaniora Tartuensia","volume":"6","issue":"6","pages":"1-26"}},"sort":["The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research"]}
| Title | The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1962 |
| Journal | Dumbarton Oaks Papers |
| Volume | 16 |
| Pages | 65-93 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wolfson, Harry Austryn |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Kepler, who, as we all know, lived under the new heaven created by Copernicus, discusses the question whether the planets are moved by Intelligences or by souls or by nature. His consideration of Intelligences as possible movers of the planets refers to a view held by those who in the Middle Ages lived under the old Ptolemaic heaven, the term Intelligences being, by a complexity of miscegenation, a descendant of what Aristotle describes as incorporeal substances. His consideration of souls or nature as possible movers of the planets touches upon a topic which was made into a problem b y the Byzantine Greek commentators of Aristotle.In this paper I shall try to show how the Byzantine commentators, in their study of the text of Aristotle, were confronted with a certain problem, how they solved that problem, and how their solution of that problem led to other problems and solutions, all of which lingered in philosophic literature down to Kepler. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/M4I0x6wRyI5xwdf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"422","_score":null,"_source":{"id":422,"authors_free":[{"id":565,"entry_id":422,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":412,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","free_first_name":"Harry Austryn","free_last_name":"Wolfson","norm_person":{"id":412,"first_name":"Harry Austryn","last_name":"Wolfson","full_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123348323","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler","main_title":{"title":"The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler"},"abstract":"Kepler, who, as we all know, lived under the new heaven created by Copernicus, discusses the question whether the planets are moved by Intelligences or by souls or by nature. His consideration of Intelligences \r\nas possible movers of the planets refers to a view held by those who in the Middle Ages lived under the old Ptolemaic heaven, the term Intelligences being, by a complexity of miscegenation, a descendant of what Aristotle describes as \r\nincorporeal substances. His consideration of souls or nature as possible movers of the planets touches upon a topic which was made into a problem b y the \r\nByzantine Greek commentators of Aristotle.In this paper I shall try to show how the Byzantine commentators, in their study of the text of Aristotle, were confronted with a certain problem, how they solved that problem, and how their solution of that problem led to other \r\nproblems and solutions, all of which lingered in philosophic literature down to Kepler. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M4I0x6wRyI5xwdf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":412,"full_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":422,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Dumbarton Oaks Papers","volume":"16","issue":"","pages":"65-93"}},"sort":["The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler"]}
| Title | The Reception of Parmenides' Poetry in Antiquity |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1998 |
| Journal | Studii Clasice |
| Volume | 34-36 |
| Pages | 5-27 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Popa, Tiberiu M. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lpfUq6eAkTn6X9w |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"409","_score":null,"_source":{"id":409,"authors_free":[{"id":547,"entry_id":409,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":510,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Popa, Tiberiu M.","free_first_name":"Tiberiu M.","free_last_name":"Popa","norm_person":{"id":510,"first_name":"Tiberiu M.","last_name":"Popa","full_name":"Popa, Tiberiu M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135018498","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Reception of Parmenides' Poetry in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Reception of Parmenides' Poetry in Antiquity"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpfUq6eAkTn6X9w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":510,"full_name":"Popa, Tiberiu M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":409,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studii Clasice","volume":"34-36","issue":"","pages":"5-27"}},"sort":["The Reception of Parmenides' Poetry in Antiquity"]}
| Title | The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue | 4/5 |
| Pages | 371-389 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Eunyoung Ju, Anna |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both as a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological taxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their discussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical, tending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept, as a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical Stoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This apparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no consensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers in detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the evidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on this topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained between the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so disagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were actually positions that might be called "standard" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In attempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain features of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late Stoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the school's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct, and, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the school's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last notion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be traced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking, namely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ml8U3H9WZ6lcXpn |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"750","_score":null,"_source":{"id":750,"authors_free":[{"id":1115,"entry_id":750,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":83,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","norm_person":{"id":83,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits","main_title":{"title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits"},"abstract":"Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both \r\nas a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological \r\ntaxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their \r\ndiscussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical, \r\ntending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept, \r\nas a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical \r\nStoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This \r\napparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no \r\nconsensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers \r\nin detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the \r\nevidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on \r\nthis topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained \r\nbetween the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so \r\ndisagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were \r\nactually positions that might be called \"standard\" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In \r\nattempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain \r\nfeatures of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late \r\nStoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the \r\nschool's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct, \r\nand, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the \r\nschool's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last \r\nnotion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be \r\ntraced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking, \r\nnamely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ml8U3H9WZ6lcXpn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":83,"full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":750,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"54","issue":"4\/5","pages":"371-389"}},"sort":["The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits"]}
| Title | The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1999 |
| Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 525-544 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | van der Ben, Nicolaas |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A9VNI33cY5vEeZV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"453","_score":null,"_source":{"id":453,"authors_free":[{"id":609,"entry_id":453,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":422,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","free_first_name":"Nicolaas","free_last_name":"van der Ben","norm_person":{"id":422,"first_name":"Nicolaas","last_name":"van der Ben","full_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks","main_title":{"title":"The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A9VNI33cY5vEeZV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":422,"full_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":453,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"52","issue":"5","pages":"525-544"}},"sort":["The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks"]}
| Title | The Synonymy of Homonyms |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1999 |
| Journal | Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie |
| Volume | 81 |
| Pages | 268–289 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Flannery, Kevin L. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Is the homonym-synonym paradox important enough to force this emendation? I think that it is. If considering the two definitions in conjunction -the definition of homonyms and that of synonyms - it turns out that homonyms qua homonyms are not homonyms and, therefore, that only qua not homonyms are homonyms homonyms, that is a problem. We can resolve the paradox by breaking the conjunction - i. e., by severing the interdependence between the two definitions by eliminating tas ouisas from the first. Would Aristotle have anticipated the paradox and set out his definitions so as to avoid it? We do not have to go so far. We need only believe that, when initially conceiving Cat. i, he had a consistent set of ideas in mind. That is, we need only believe that he had in mind a position that would not lead to the type of problems that typically arise when two definitions are interdependent. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/laiBufZGe9XGRh9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"547","_score":null,"_source":{"id":547,"authors_free":[{"id":771,"entry_id":547,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":114,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Flannery, Kevin L.","free_first_name":"Kevin L.","free_last_name":"Flannery","norm_person":{"id":114,"first_name":"Kevin L.","last_name":"Flannery","full_name":"Flannery, Kevin L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/104462485X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Synonymy of Homonyms","main_title":{"title":"The Synonymy of Homonyms"},"abstract":"Is the homonym-synonym paradox important enough to force this emen\u00addation? I think that it is. If considering the two definitions in conjunction -the definition of homonyms and that of synonyms - it turns out that homo\u00adnyms qua homonyms are not homonyms and, therefore, that only qua not homonyms are homonyms homonyms, that is a problem. We can resolve the paradox by breaking the conjunction - i. e., by severing the interdepen\u00addence between the two definitions by eliminating tas ouisas from the first. Would Aristotle have anticipated the paradox and set out his definitions so as to avoid it? We do not have to go so far. We need only believe that, when initially conceiving Cat. i, he had a consistent set of ideas in mind. That is, we need only believe that he had in mind a position that would not lead to the type of problems that typically arise when two definitions are interdependent. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/laiBufZGe9XGRh9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":114,"full_name":"Flannery, Kevin L.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":547,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"81","issue":"","pages":"268\u2013289"}},"sort":["The Synonymy of Homonyms"]}
| Title | The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Journal | unpublished |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YrSMisIj9WZWjh2 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"245","_score":null,"_source":{"id":245,"authors_free":[{"id":314,"entry_id":245,"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":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YrSMisIj9WZWjh2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":245,"pubplace":"","publisher":"","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":{"id":245,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"unpublished","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":["The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"]}
| 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":["The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined"]}