Title | Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Publication Place | Hampshire - Brookfield |
Publisher | Ashgate |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Di Liscia, Daniel A. , Keßler, Eckhard , Methuen, Charlotte |
Translator(s) |
The volume results from a seminar sponsored by the ’Foundation for Intellectual History’ at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, in 1992. Starting with the theory of regressus as displayed in its most developed form by William Wallace, these papers enter the vast field of the Renaissance discussion on method as such in its historical and systematical context. This is confined neither to the notion of method in the strict sense, nor to the Renaissance in its exact historical limits, nor yet to the Aristotelian tradition as a well defined philosophical school, but requires a new scholarly approach. Thus - besides Galileo, Zabarella and their circles, which are regarded as being crucial for the ’emergence of modern science’ in the end of the 16th century - the contributors deal with the ancient and medieval origins as well as with the early modern continuity of the Renaissance concepts of method and with ’non-regressive’ methodologies in the various approaches of Renaissance natural philosophy, including the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UYVQMPV7rKKzfRo |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"298","_score":null,"_source":{"id":298,"authors_free":[{"id":368,"entry_id":298,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":268,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","free_first_name":"Daniel A.","free_last_name":"Di Liscia","norm_person":{"id":268,"first_name":"Daniel A.","last_name":"Di Liscia","full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140744282","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":369,"entry_id":298,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":267,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","free_first_name":"Eckhard","free_last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":267,"first_name":"Eckhard","last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117756431","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":370,"entry_id":298,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":269,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","free_first_name":"Charlotte","free_last_name":"Methuen","norm_person":{"id":269,"first_name":"Charlotte","last_name":"Methuen","full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137191812","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"The volume results from a seminar sponsored by the \u2019Foundation for Intellectual History\u2019 at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenb\u00fcttel, in 1992. Starting with the theory of regressus as displayed in its most developed form by William Wallace, these papers enter the vast field of the Renaissance discussion on method as such in its historical and systematical context. This is confined neither to the notion of method in the strict sense, nor to the Renaissance in its exact historical limits, nor yet to the Aristotelian tradition as a well defined philosophical school, but requires a new scholarly approach. Thus - besides Galileo, Zabarella and their circles, which are regarded as being crucial for the \u2019emergence of modern science\u2019 in the end of the 16th century - the contributors deal with the ancient and medieval origins as well as with the early modern continuity of the Renaissance concepts of method and with \u2019non-regressive\u2019 methodologies in the various approaches of Renaissance natural philosophy, including the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions.","btype":4,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UYVQMPV7rKKzfRo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":268,"full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":267,"full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":269,"full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":298,"pubplace":"Hampshire - Brookfield","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Priscian: On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with 'Simplicius': On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5-12 |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Duckworth |
Series | Ancient commentators on Aristotle |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Simplicius , Priscianus |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) | Huby, Pamela M.(Huby, Pamela M.) , Steel, Carlos(Steel, Carlos ) , |
Simplicius and Priscian were two of the seven Neoplatonists who left Athens when the Christian Emperor Justinian closed the paganschool there in A.D. 529. The commentaries ascribed to them on works on sense-perception, one by Aristotle and one by his successor Theophrastus, are translated here in this single volume. Both commentaries give a highly Neoplatonic reading to their Aristotelian subjects and tell us much about late Neoplatonist psychology. This volume is also designed to enable readers to assess a recent major controversy: it has been argued by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is in fact by Priscian, and their article, hitherto only available in Dutch, is here published in revised form and in English for the first time. This book therefore contains all the evidence necessary for readers to judge this intriguing question for themselves. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oYMeNNoid5OarXV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"142","_score":null,"_source":{"id":142,"authors_free":[{"id":2498,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2500,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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}},{"id":2519,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2520,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":369,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Priscianus","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":369,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"Priscianus","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118596624","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscian: On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with 'Simplicius': On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5-12","main_title":{"title":"Priscian: On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with 'Simplicius': On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5-12"},"abstract":"Simplicius and Priscian were two of the seven Neoplatonists who left Athens when the Christian Emperor Justinian closed the paganschool there in A.D. 529. The commentaries ascribed to them on works on sense-perception, one by Aristotle and one by his successor Theophrastus, are translated here in this single volume. Both commentaries give a highly Neoplatonic reading to their Aristotelian subjects and tell us much about late Neoplatonist psychology.\r\nThis volume is also designed to enable readers to assess a recent major controversy: it has been argued by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is in fact by Priscian, and their article, hitherto only available in Dutch, is here published in revised form and in English for the first time. This book therefore contains all the evidence necessary for readers to judge this intriguing question for themselves.","btype":4,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oYMeNNoid5OarXV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":369,"full_name":"Priscianus","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":142,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathématiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen? |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1997 |
Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
Volume | 1 |
Pages | 42–107 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Th e historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country’s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu’s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna’s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu’s hypothesis. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/02SsgCQOWvog4KZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"698","_score":null,"_source":{"id":698,"authors_free":[{"id":1038,"entry_id":698,"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":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?","main_title":{"title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"},"abstract":"Th e historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country\u2019s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu\u2019s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna\u2019s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu\u2019s hypothesis. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/02SsgCQOWvog4KZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":698,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"42\u2013107"}},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l’Antiquité |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1997 |
Journal | AnTard (Antiquité Tardive. Revue internationale d’histoire et d’archéolog) |
Volume | 5 |
Pages | 169–176 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Opening with an overview of the historical development of the continuous philosophical commentary, this study aims to bring out the profound differences between modem philosophicalcommentaries and the Late Antique commentaries on Plato and Aristotle. The modem commentariesare concerned to explain the texts for an audience which is not defined. By contrast, the ancient commentaries belonged to a precise programme of reading the texts concerned, a programme which corresponded both to levels of knowledge and levels of spiritual progression. They were therefore addressed, depending on the type of text, to beginners, to intermediate or to very advanced students; and their content and method varied greatly according to the level of the intended readership. Furthermore, explaining the text was never an end in itself; the commentary was intended not so much to expand knowledge as to assist in the acquisition of a particular ethical attitude, leading to a particular way of life. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KGcBjvMc1dJkk3J |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"695","_score":null,"_source":{"id":695,"authors_free":[{"id":1034,"entry_id":695,"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":"Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9"},"abstract":"Opening with an overview of the historical development of the continuous philosophical commentary, this study aims to bring out the profound differences between modem philosophicalcommentaries and the Late Antique commentaries on Plato and Aristotle. The modem commentariesare concerned to explain the texts for an audience which is not defined. By contrast, the ancient commentaries belonged to a precise programme of reading the texts concerned, a programme which corresponded both to levels of knowledge and levels of spiritual progression. They were therefore addressed, depending on the type of text, to beginners, to intermediate or to very advanced students; and their content and method varied greatly according to the level of the intended readership. Furthermore, explaining the text was never an end in itself; the commentary was intended not so much to expand knowledge as to assist in the acquisition of a particular ethical attitude, leading to a particular way of life. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KGcBjvMc1dJkk3J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":695,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"AnTard (Antiquit\u00e9 Tardive. Revue internationale d\u2019histoire et d\u2019arch\u00e9olog)","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"169\u2013176"}},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome |
Pages | 110-129 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sedley, David N. |
Editor(s) | Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Michael J. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5EKsDxZh3Wkt1SQ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"647","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":647,"authors_free":[{"id":926,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"David N.","free_last_name":"Sedley","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":927,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":928,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5EKsDxZh3Wkt1SQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":647,"section_of":283,"pages":"110-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6YTVy44avqjDZN1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Aspects de la théorie de la perception chez les néoplatoniciens : sensation (αἴσθησις), sensation commune (κοινὴ αἴσθησις), sensibles communs (κοινὰ αἰσθητά) et conscience de soi (συναίσθησις) |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1997 |
Journal | Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale |
Volume | 8 |
Pages | 33–85 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ENXqCcYm89glA38 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"643","_score":null,"_source":{"id":643,"authors_free":[{"id":918,"entry_id":643,"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":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)","main_title":{"title":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ENXqCcYm89glA38","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":643,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"33\u201385"}},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Journal | Phronesis |
Volume | 42 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 190-205 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
A number of features of the doctrine of Alexander of Aphrodisias on heavenly motions are beyond reasonable doubt. First and foremost of these is that he identified the nature of the heavenly spheres with their soul, thereby he could entirely collapse natural motion with voluntary motion into one in their case. Moreover the celestial element, which Alexander tends to call theion sôma, divine body is removed from the components of the everchanging sublunary world to the extent that it can be a legitimate question whether the substrate of celestial bodies can be called matter, and Alexander can refer to perishable entities as evIua, material in contrast to this sublime element. After identifying the contribution of the nature of the celestial spheres with that of their soul, Alexander follows Aristotle in setting out a celestial hierarchy, on top of which there is or there are the separate unmoved mover(s), which move(s) by being object(s) of striving and desire for the less perfect entities of the heavens. This much seems to be firmly settled. A number of further issues, however, call for detailed examination. In this paper first I set out to clarify the contributions of the striving of the different celestial spheres, then I turn to describing the interaction between the various motions of the celestial system, and I discuss whether the theory Alexander propounded could have been a fundamental revision, or rather an alternative exposition of the original, Aristotelian celestial theory deploying homocentric spheres. [Introduction, pp. 190 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qoA5caxGCjSIqQm |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1082","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1082,"authors_free":[{"id":1637,"entry_id":1082,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M. ","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M. ","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions"},"abstract":"A number of features of the doctrine of Alexander of Aphrodisias on heavenly motions are beyond reasonable doubt. First and foremost of these is \r\nthat he identified the nature of the heavenly spheres with their soul, thereby he could entirely collapse natural motion with voluntary motion into one in their case. Moreover the celestial element, which Alexander tends to call theion s\u00f4ma, divine body is removed from the components of \r\nthe everchanging sublunary world to the extent that it can be a legitimate question whether the substrate of celestial bodies can be called matter, and Alexander can refer to perishable entities as evIua, material in contrast to this sublime element. After identifying the contribution of the nature of the celestial spheres with that of their soul, Alexander follows \r\nAristotle in setting out a celestial hierarchy, on top of which there is or there are the separate unmoved mover(s), which move(s) by being object(s) of striving and desire for the less perfect entities of the heavens. This much seems to be firmly settled. A number of further issues, however, call for detailed examination. In this paper first I set out to clarify the contributions of the striving of the different celestial spheres, then I turn to describing the interaction between the various motions of the celestial system, and I discuss whether the theory Alexander propounded could have been a fundamental revision, or rather an alternative exposition of the original, Aristotelian celestial theory deploying homocentric spheres. [Introduction, pp. 190 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qoA5caxGCjSIqQm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1082,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"42","issue":"2","pages":"190-205"}},"sort":[1997]}
Title | The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Aristotle and after |
Pages | 91-107 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gaskin, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called ‘sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are ‘complete’ lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex ‘complete’ lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, ‘incomplete’ lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rhêma) ‘writes’ and the complete sentence (logos) ‘Socrates writes’ should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). In this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hsCVIlyqpBpc4yJ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1177","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1177,"authors_free":[{"id":1751,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","free_first_name":"Richard ","free_last_name":"Gaskin","norm_person":{"id":132,"first_name":"Richard ","last_name":"Gaskin","full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1049853571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2358,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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 Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition","main_title":{"title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"},"abstract":"As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called \u2018sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are \u2018complete\u2019 lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex \u2018complete\u2019 lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, \u2018incomplete\u2019 lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rh\u00eama) \u2018writes\u2019 and the complete sentence (logos) \u2018Socrates writes\u2019 should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). \r\nIn this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hsCVIlyqpBpc4yJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1177,"section_of":199,"pages":"91-107","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YmwXqTgEl5I3UF5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Aristote, «Physique», IV, 2 |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1997 |
Journal | Les Études philosophiques. Philosophie Ancienne |
Volume | 3 |
Pages | 377-387 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Brisson, Luc |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tI7koCi2kw6RY4u |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"768","_score":null,"_source":{"id":768,"authors_free":[{"id":1132,"entry_id":768,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":18,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc ","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":{"id":18,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Brisson","full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114433259","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote, \u00abPhysique\u00bb, IV, 2","main_title":{"title":"Aristote, \u00abPhysique\u00bb, IV, 2"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tI7koCi2kw6RY4u","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":18,"full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":768,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques. Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"377-387"}},"sort":[1997]}
Title | La Νοερὰ θεωρία di Giamblico, come Chiave di Lettura delle Categorie di Aristotele: alcuni esempi |
Type | Article |
Language | Italian |
Date | 1997 |
Journal | Syllecta Classica |
Volume | 8 |
Pages | 79-94 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cardullo, R. Loredana |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/72ijDoM1QBWaxad |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"938","_score":null,"_source":{"id":938,"authors_free":[{"id":1391,"entry_id":938,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","free_first_name":"R. Loredana ","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 di Giamblico, come Chiave di Lettura delle Categorie di Aristotele: alcuni esempi","main_title":{"title":"La \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 di Giamblico, come Chiave di Lettura delle Categorie di Aristotele: alcuni esempi"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/72ijDoM1QBWaxad","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":938,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syllecta Classica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"79-94"}},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 97-120 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I shall argue that Porphyry was the first Platonist philosopher to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Previous scholars have come close to maintaining such a view, but to my knowledge, this has never been expressly argued. They usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the Neoplatonists (ie. the Platonists after Plotinus) to write commentaries on Aristotle, but not the first of the entire Platonist tradition. One reason for this is that Porphyry’s estimation of Aristotle’s philosophy has not been sufficiently appreciated. In addition, I think, the particular nature of philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, or Iamblichus remains in need of clarification, as does its philosophical motivation. As a result, scholars have tended to credit several Platonists before Porphyry with the writing of commentaries on Aristotelian works, simply because they appear to have made various sorts of comments on one or more of his works. I will argue that these Platonists did not, however, produce commentaries of the sort that Porphyry did, which I consider to be ‘commentaries’ in the proper sense of the term. Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the specific form of commentary written by Porphyry. I will claim that in the latter case the author sets out to write a commentary in order to facilitate and encourage its study and assist in its teaching. This presupposes acceptance of the views expressed by the source text and implies an assertion of its authority. The examination of the evidence concerning the Platonists before Porphyry shows that none of them can be credited with a commentary on Aristotle of the sort written by Porphyry (II). I will then try to explain why Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle in the first place (III), which leads me to conjecture that he considered Aristotle’s views in the Categories (IV), the Physics (V), and on first principles (VI) compatible with those of Plato and also sufficiently philosophically valuable as to deserve serious study. I will conclude that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle’s views, he accepted him as an authority next to Plato, and this represented something new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N41MQStD4wulva1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall argue that Porphyry was the first Platonist philosopher to write commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Previous scholars have come close to maintaining \r\nsuch a view, but to my knowledge, this has never been expressly argued. They usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the Neoplatonists (ie. the Platonists after Plotinus) to write commentaries on Aristotle, but not the first of the entire Platonist tradition. One reason for this is that Porphyry\u2019s estimation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy has not been sufficiently appreciated. In addition, I think, the particular nature of philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, or Iamblichus remains in need of clarification, as does its philosophical motivation. As a result, scholars have tended to credit several Platonists \r\nbefore Porphyry with the writing of commentaries on Aristotelian works, simply because they appear to have made various sorts of comments on one or more of his works. I will argue that these Platonists did not, however, produce commentaries of the sort that Porphyry did, which I consider to be \u2018commentaries\u2019 in the proper sense of the term. Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the specific form of commentary written by Porphyry. I will claim that in the latter case the author sets out to write a commentary in order to facilitate and \r\nencourage its study and assist in its teaching. This presupposes acceptance of the views \r\nexpressed by the source text and implies an assertion of its authority. The examination of \r\nthe evidence concerning the Platonists before Porphyry shows that none of them can be \r\ncredited with a commentary on Aristotle of the sort written by Porphyry (II). I will then \r\ntry to explain why Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle in the first place (III), which leads me to conjecture that he considered Aristotle\u2019s views in the Categories (IV), the Physics (V), and on first principles (VI) compatible with those of Plato and also sufficiently philosophically valuable as to deserve serious study. I will conclude that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s views, he accepted him as an authority next to Plato, and this represented something new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N41MQStD4wulva1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AV77iy4WOXfGTHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"]}
Title | Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Journal | Phronesis |
Volume | 51 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 140-161 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | McGinnis, Jon |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle's account of place in terms of an innermost limit of a containing body was to generate serious discussion and controversy among Aristotle's later commentators, especially when it was applied to the cosmos as a whole. The problem was that since there is nothing outside of the cosmos that could contain it, the cosmos apparently could not have a place according to Aristotle's definition; however, if the cosmos does not have a place, then it is not clear that it could move, but it was thought to move, namely, in its daily revolution, which was viewed as a kind of natural locomotion and so required the cosmos to have a place. The study briefly outlines Aristotle's account of place and then considers its fate, particularly with respect to the cosmos and its motion, at the hands of later commentators. To this end, it begins with Theophrastus' puzzles concerning Aristotle's account of place, and how later Greek commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and others, attempted to address these problems in what can only be described as ad hoc ways. It then considers Philoponus' exploitation of these problems as a means to replace Aristotle's account of place with his own account of place understood in terms of extension. The study concludes with the Arabic Neoplatonizing Aristotelian Avicenna and his novel intro- duction of a new category of motion, namely, motion in the category of position. Briefly, Avicenna denies that the cosmos has a place, and so claims that it moves not with respect to place, but with respect to position. [Author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3eYjGVkKe2HRkaK |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"729","_score":null,"_source":{"id":729,"authors_free":[{"id":1092,"entry_id":729,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":252,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McGinnis, Jon","free_first_name":"Jon","free_last_name":"McGinnis","norm_person":{"id":252,"first_name":"Jon","last_name":"McGinnis","full_name":"McGinnis, Jon","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141369248","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian","main_title":{"title":"Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian"},"abstract":"Aristotle's account of place in terms of an innermost limit of a containing body was to generate serious discussion and controversy among Aristotle's later commentators, especially when it was applied to the cosmos as a whole. The problem was that since there is nothing outside of the cosmos that could contain it, the cosmos apparently could not have a place according to Aristotle's definition; however, if the cosmos does not have a place, then it is not clear that it could move, but it was thought to move, namely, in its daily revolution, which was viewed as a kind of natural locomotion and so required the cosmos to have a place. The study briefly outlines Aristotle's account of place and then considers its fate, particularly with respect to the cosmos and its motion, at the hands of later commentators. To this end, it begins with Theophrastus' puzzles concerning Aristotle's account of place, and how later Greek commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and others, attempted to address these problems in what can only be described as ad hoc ways. It then considers Philoponus' exploitation of these problems as a means to replace Aristotle's account of place with his own account of place understood in terms of extension. The study concludes with the Arabic Neoplatonizing Aristotelian Avicenna and his novel intro- duction of a new category of motion, namely, motion in the category of position. Briefly, Avicenna denies that the cosmos has a place, and so claims that it moves not with respect to place, but with respect to position. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3eYjGVkKe2HRkaK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":252,"full_name":"McGinnis, Jon","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":729,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"51","issue":"2","pages":"140-161"}},"sort":["Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian"]}
Title | Postérité de l’être. Simplicius interprète de Parménide |
Type | Monograph |
Language | French |
Date | 1991 |
Publication Place | Bruxelles |
Publisher | Ousia |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Stevens, Annick |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Stevens sets out to clarify Parmenides' philosophy with an analysis of Simplicius' presentation of his fragments and the related contextual exposition. This is a complex task, as twelve centuries separate Simplicius from the Presocratics, and, although generous beyond his needs in the length of Eleatic quotations, Simplicius is only too ready to enlist Parmenides as an earlier witness to the Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretations that pervade his commentary on Aristotelian texts. A further complication is that the order imposed by Aristotle's Physics and De Caelo is at variance with the sequence of Eleatic argument. S.'s cahier is much too brief for the subject-matter involved. He has one chapter each on Parmenides' Aletheia and Doxa, sandwiched between a brief introduction and conclusion. Additionally, there is an Appendix, more than half the length of what has preceded, which consists of a translation into French (without the Greek text but with some annotation) of relevant sections from Simplicius' Phys. 28-180, 243-4, and DC 556-60. An Index of the fragments of Parmenides cited in these two works is added, as well as a short bibliography. Interspersed in the text are tables giving Greek words from Simplicius, their French translation, and a brief justification. The point of these is obscure, and, since they are hard to follow in the absence of a continuous text, the result may appear arbitrary. For example, "teleion" at Phys. 29.10 is translated as "parfait," "telos" in the next line as "accomplissement," but "teleutê" further down as "fin."Translation of Eleatic texts in general looks easier in French than English, with 'il' conveniently ambiguous for Greek masculine, neuter, or impersonal subject, and "l’Étant'" and "l’être'" (with and without capitals) for ontological terminology. The main problem with S.'s study is the level of scholarship involved and consequently the readership targeted. There are a number of ways of tackling the subject, none of which S. holds to consistently. One is a straightforward introduction to reading Parmenides' lines in their Simplicius context, and sometimes S. is writing in this way. The first chapter, for example, starts with a straightforward narrative of the 'signs' for the Aletheia, and the second with the usual listing of different views on the status of the Doxa. Simplicius' position on both these topics is given, but without any explanation of the Neoplatonic terms (like 'Etant-Un') that are used. Secondly, there is a scholarly monograph struggling to emerge. The reader can suddenly be involved in a sophisticated comparison of Parmenides' concept of "ateleston" with "apeiron" in Melissus, or in textual exegesis, or in studying the relevance of the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides, or the exact meaning of "apatêlon" in B 8.52. But thirdly what is needed, as S. indicates in the subtitle, is a full and detailed discussion of Simplicius as an interpreter of Parmenides. This could usefully tackle Simplicius' reasons for finding Parmenides compatible with both Plato and Aristotle, the particular readings (or re-readings) of all four ancient authors that might be involved in the exercise, what traps might thereby be set in the path of those who are tracking the original Parmenides, and what implications would then arise for Simplicius' treatment of other Presocratics. All this is yet to be done. (Review by M. R. Wright) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/emrqNfIbKqCFiEi |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"51","_score":null,"_source":{"id":51,"authors_free":[{"id":59,"entry_id":51,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide","main_title":{"title":"Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide"},"abstract":"Stevens sets out to clarify Parmenides' philosophy with an analysis of Simplicius' presentation of his fragments and the related contextual exposition. This is a complex task, as twelve centuries separate Simplicius from the Presocratics, and, although generous beyond his needs in the length of Eleatic quotations, Simplicius is only too ready to enlist Parmenides as an earlier witness to the Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretations that pervade his commentary on Aristotelian texts. A further complication is that the order imposed by Aristotle's Physics and De Caelo is at variance with the sequence of Eleatic argument.\r\n\r\nS.'s cahier is much too brief for the subject-matter involved. He has one chapter each on Parmenides' Aletheia and Doxa, sandwiched between a brief introduction and conclusion. Additionally, there is an Appendix, more than half the length of what has preceded, which consists of a translation into French (without the Greek text but with some annotation) of relevant sections from Simplicius' Phys. 28-180, 243-4, and DC 556-60. An Index of the fragments of Parmenides cited in these two works is added, as well as a short bibliography.\r\nInterspersed in the text are tables giving Greek words from Simplicius, their French translation, and a brief justification. The point of these is obscure, and, since they are hard to follow in the absence of a continuous text, the result may appear arbitrary. For example, \"teleion\" at Phys. 29.10 is translated as \"parfait,\" \"telos\" in the next line as \"accomplissement,\" but \"teleut\u00ea\" further down as \"fin.\"Translation of Eleatic texts in general looks easier in French than English, with 'il' conveniently ambiguous for Greek masculine, neuter, or impersonal subject, and \"l\u2019\u00c9tant'\" and \"l\u2019\u00eatre'\" (with and without capitals) for ontological terminology.\r\nThe main problem with S.'s study is the level of scholarship involved and consequently the readership targeted. There are a number of ways of tackling the subject, none of which S. holds to consistently. One is a straightforward introduction to reading Parmenides' lines in their Simplicius context, and sometimes S. is writing in this way. The first chapter, for example, starts with a straightforward narrative of the 'signs' for the Aletheia, and the second with the usual listing of different views on the status of the Doxa. Simplicius' position on both these topics is given, but without any explanation of the Neoplatonic terms (like 'Etant-Un') that are used. Secondly, there is a scholarly monograph struggling to emerge. The reader can suddenly be involved in a sophisticated comparison of Parmenides' concept of \"ateleston\" with \"apeiron\" in Melissus, or in textual exegesis, or in studying the relevance of the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides, or the exact meaning of \"apat\u00ealon\" in B 8.52. But thirdly what is needed, as S. indicates in the subtitle, is a full and detailed discussion of Simplicius as an interpreter of Parmenides. This could usefully tackle Simplicius' reasons for finding Parmenides compatible with both Plato and Aristotle, the particular readings (or re-readings) of all four ancient authors that might be involved in the exercise, what traps might thereby be set in the path of those who are tracking the original Parmenides, and what implications would then arise for Simplicius' treatment of other Presocratics. All this is yet to be done. (Review by M. R. Wright)","btype":1,"date":"1991","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/emrqNfIbKqCFiEi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":51,"pubplace":"Bruxelles","publisher":"Ousia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide"]}
Title | Pour une histoire de l’interprétation de Diogène |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | |
Pages | 21-36 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as "the last of the physicists," there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that "intellection" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/inrLdeLcJOq8Gdb |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1189","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1189,"authors_free":[{"id":1761,"entry_id":1189,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne","main_title":{"title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne"},"abstract":"This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as \"the last of the physicists,\" there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that \"intellection\" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/inrLdeLcJOq8Gdb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1189,"section_of":351,"pages":"21-36","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":["Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne"]}
Title | Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2016 |
Publication Place | Rom |
Publisher | Città Nuova |
Series | Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Vitale, Angelo Maria , Boriello, Maria |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"343","_score":null,"_source":{"id":343,"authors_free":[{"id":444,"entry_id":343,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":249,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Vitale, Angelo Maria","free_first_name":"Angelo Maria","free_last_name":"Vitale","norm_person":{"id":249,"first_name":"Angelo Maria","last_name":"Vitale","full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071335952","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2078,"entry_id":343,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":248,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boriello, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Boriello","norm_person":{"id":248,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Boriello","full_name":"Boriello, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1148023100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","main_title":{"title":"Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":249,"full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":248,"full_name":"Boriello, Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":343,"pubplace":"Rom","publisher":"Citt\u00e0 Nuova","series":"Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico"]}
Title | Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Published in | The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II |
Pages | 756–764 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | de Haas, F. A. J. |
Editor(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
Translator(s) |
The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work "Solutiones ad Chosroem," translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the "Solutiones" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yG7kPTQ8HkDRyud |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1551","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1551,"authors_free":[{"id":2713,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, F. A. J.","free_first_name":"F. A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2714,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul"},"abstract":"The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work \"Solutiones ad Chosroem,\" translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the \"Solutiones\" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yG7kPTQ8HkDRyud","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1551,"section_of":964,"pages":"756\u2013764 ","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/m4jubd6IQgEk4Bo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul"]}
Title | Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
Volume | 58 |
Issue | 4 |
Pages | 510-530 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- mentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V0QkTnShQo0nyvB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1086","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1086,"authors_free":[{"id":1642,"entry_id":1086,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus"},"abstract":"It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- \r\nmentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V0QkTnShQo0nyvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1086,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"58","issue":"4","pages":"510-530"}},"sort":["Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus"]}
Title | Priscian: On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with 'Simplicius': On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5-12 |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Duckworth |
Series | Ancient commentators on Aristotle |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Simplicius , Priscianus |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) | Huby, Pamela M.(Huby, Pamela M.) , Steel, Carlos(Steel, Carlos ) , |
Simplicius and Priscian were two of the seven Neoplatonists who left Athens when the Christian Emperor Justinian closed the paganschool there in A.D. 529. The commentaries ascribed to them on works on sense-perception, one by Aristotle and one by his successor Theophrastus, are translated here in this single volume. Both commentaries give a highly Neoplatonic reading to their Aristotelian subjects and tell us much about late Neoplatonist psychology. This volume is also designed to enable readers to assess a recent major controversy: it has been argued by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is in fact by Priscian, and their article, hitherto only available in Dutch, is here published in revised form and in English for the first time. This book therefore contains all the evidence necessary for readers to judge this intriguing question for themselves. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oYMeNNoid5OarXV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"142","_score":null,"_source":{"id":142,"authors_free":[{"id":2498,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2500,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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}},{"id":2519,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2520,"entry_id":142,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":369,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Priscianus","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":369,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"Priscianus","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118596624","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscian: On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with 'Simplicius': On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5-12","main_title":{"title":"Priscian: On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with 'Simplicius': On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5-12"},"abstract":"Simplicius and Priscian were two of the seven Neoplatonists who left Athens when the Christian Emperor Justinian closed the paganschool there in A.D. 529. The commentaries ascribed to them on works on sense-perception, one by Aristotle and one by his successor Theophrastus, are translated here in this single volume. Both commentaries give a highly Neoplatonic reading to their Aristotelian subjects and tell us much about late Neoplatonist psychology.\r\nThis volume is also designed to enable readers to assess a recent major controversy: it has been argued by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is in fact by Priscian, and their article, hitherto only available in Dutch, is here published in revised form and in English for the first time. This book therefore contains all the evidence necessary for readers to judge this intriguing question for themselves.","btype":4,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oYMeNNoid5OarXV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":369,"full_name":"Priscianus","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":142,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Priscian: On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with 'Simplicius': On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5-12"]}
Title | Priscianus Lydus en de "In De Anima" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius |
Type | Article |
Language | Dutch |
Date | 1972 |
Journal | Tijdschrift voor Filosofie |
Volume | 34 |
Issue | 4 |
Pages | 761-822 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bossier, Fernand , Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. about their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre -Neoplatonic, hands survive, exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.] Source: https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MADsskDf9a78Egx • Bossier, Fernand and Carlos Steel, 1972, “Priscianus Lydus en de ‘In de Anima’ van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius”, Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie, 34(4): 761–822. Abstract: Dans cet article, nous avons essayé d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima à Simplicius. En comparant ce traité aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Catégories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons été en effet frappés par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la manière différente de commenter. Dans la première partie, nous démontrons que l'auteur du In De Anima a écrit également la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a été transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien. Dans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie à une de ses œuvres, qu'il appelle "Epitomé de la Physique de Théophraste". En réalité, cette référence se rapporte à un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, où la même problématique est exposée dans des termes identiques. - 2° Une comparaison détaillée, qui porte sur l'ensemble des deux œuvres, nous révèle une telle ressemblance de style et de pensée - il y a même des phrases à peu près identiques - qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypothèse de l'identité de l'auteur. Dans la deuxième partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux œuvres qui nous ont pourtant été transmises sous deux noms différents. L'étude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte guère de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un à Simplicius, l'autre à Priscien, y paraît très solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne du In De Anima, notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra être tranchée. Dans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie trois fois à son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y réfère. - 2° Dans le In De Anima, on ne retrouve pas les traits caractéristiques de la méthode de commenter de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les exégètes antérieurs, ni l'exposé prolixe et bien structuré ; d'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne témoigne de la phraséologie tortueuse de notre œuvre, ni de ses formules stéréotypées. - 3° La différence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'apparaît la théorie de l'âme comme "émanation", qui est si fondamentale dans le In De Anima ("émanation" y est un concept-clé). Les rares digressions du In De Anima à propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux exposés de Simplicius sur les mêmes problèmes. Ainsi, nous avons confronté la doctrine de la "physis", de l'âme et de son "automotion", et enfin le rapport entre le "genre" et les différences "constitutives" et "diérétiques". De tout cela se dégage une telle divergence entre le In De Anima et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une évolution chez Simplicius lui-même. Le In De Anima lui est donc faussement attribué ; et puisque nous avons établi que ce commentaire est du même auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a été vraisemblablement écrit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe néoplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagné Damascius et Simplicius en exil en Perse. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ufNuMRxWJbAzWRP |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1077","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1077,"authors_free":[{"id":1632,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1633,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. about their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre -Neoplatonic, hands survive, exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]\r\nSource: https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MADsskDf9a78Egx\r\n\u2022\tBossier, Fernand and Carlos Steel, 1972, \u201cPriscianus Lydus en de \u2018In de Anima\u2019 van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius\u201d, Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie, 34(4): 761\u2013822.\r\nAbstract: Dans cet article, nous avons essay\u00e9 d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima \u00e0 Simplicius. En comparant ce trait\u00e9 aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Cat\u00e9gories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons \u00e9t\u00e9 en effet frapp\u00e9s par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la mani\u00e8re diff\u00e9rente de commenter. \r\nDans la premi\u00e8re partie, nous d\u00e9montrons que l'auteur du In De Anima a \u00e9crit \u00e9galement la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a \u00e9t\u00e9 transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien. Dans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie \u00e0 une de ses \u0153uvres, qu'il appelle \"Epitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste\". En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, cette r\u00e9f\u00e9rence se rapporte \u00e0 un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, o\u00f9 la m\u00eame probl\u00e9matique est expos\u00e9e dans des termes identiques. - 2\u00b0 Une comparaison d\u00e9taill\u00e9e, qui porte sur l'ensemble des deux \u0153uvres, nous r\u00e9v\u00e8le une telle ressemblance de style et de pens\u00e9e - il y a m\u00eame des phrases \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s identiques - qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'identit\u00e9 de l'auteur.\r\nDans la deuxi\u00e8me partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux \u0153uvres qui nous ont pourtant \u00e9t\u00e9 transmises sous deux noms diff\u00e9rents. L'\u00e9tude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte gu\u00e8re de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un \u00e0 Simplicius, l'autre \u00e0 Priscien, y para\u00eet tr\u00e8s solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne du In De Anima, notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra \u00eatre tranch\u00e9e.\r\nDans le In De Anima, l'auteur renvoie trois fois \u00e0 son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y r\u00e9f\u00e8re. - 2\u00b0 Dans le In De Anima, on ne retrouve pas les traits caract\u00e9ristiques de la m\u00e9thode de commenter de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes ant\u00e9rieurs, ni l'expos\u00e9 prolixe et bien structur\u00e9 ; d'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne t\u00e9moigne de la phras\u00e9ologie tortueuse de notre \u0153uvre, ni de ses formules st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9es. - 3\u00b0 La diff\u00e9rence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'appara\u00eet la th\u00e9orie de l'\u00e2me comme \"\u00e9manation\", qui est si fondamentale dans le In De Anima (\"\u00e9manation\" y est un concept-cl\u00e9). Les rares digressions du In De Anima \u00e0 propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux expos\u00e9s de Simplicius sur les m\u00eames probl\u00e8mes. Ainsi, nous avons confront\u00e9 la doctrine de la \"physis\", de l'\u00e2me et de son \"automotion\", et enfin le rapport entre le \"genre\" et les diff\u00e9rences \"constitutives\" et \"di\u00e9r\u00e9tiques\". De tout cela se d\u00e9gage une telle divergence entre le In De Anima et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une \u00e9volution chez Simplicius lui-m\u00eame. Le In De Anima lui est donc faussement attribu\u00e9 ; et puisque nous avons \u00e9tabli que ce commentaire est du m\u00eame auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 vraisemblablement \u00e9crit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagn\u00e9 Damascius et Simplicius en exil en Perse.\r\n[author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ufNuMRxWJbAzWRP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1077,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"34","issue":"4","pages":"761-822"}},"sort":["Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius"]}
Title | Priscianus of Ludia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 695-696 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
This text provides a brief overview of Priscianus of Ludia, a Neo-Platonic philosopher who was active in Athens during Justinian's reign. [whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/phcZUzffGVrwQFw |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1263","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1263,"authors_free":[{"id":1853,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2092,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2093,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus of Ludia","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus of Ludia"},"abstract":"This text provides a brief overview of Priscianus of Ludia, a Neo-Platonic philosopher who was active in Athens during Justinian's reign. [whole text]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/phcZUzffGVrwQFw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1263,"section_of":1265,"pages":"695-696","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o5hUnJloq4MZtA0","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1263,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"695-696"}},"sort":["Priscianus of Ludia"]}