| Title | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Publication Place | Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Brill's companions to classical reception |
| Volume | 13 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A. |
| Translator(s) |
| Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: ‘Early Developments in Reception’ (four chapters); ‘Early Imperial Reception’ (nine chapters); and ‘Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism’ (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":259,"authors_free":[{"id":1822,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2370,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2371,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2372,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Danielle A. ","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 13-43 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry’s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases building on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander’s and Porphyry’s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic XeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/f40u6koKhn1exfj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/f40u6koKhn1exfj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 59 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwark, Marina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (μορφή) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius’ commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus’ assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus’ position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus’assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the ’constitution thesis with Iamblichus’theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of σύλληψισς. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (κοινὴ σύλληψις) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1144,"authors_free":[{"id":1717,"entry_id":1144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)"},"abstract":"The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus\u2019 assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus\u2019 position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus\u2019assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the \u2019constitution thesis with Iamblichus\u2019theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c2. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1144,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"59"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
| Pages | 101-125 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the κόσμος. Plato’s and Aristotle’s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities. From our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding of Simplicius’ way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius’ interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JEG1kUm2Lx3tmEf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1154","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1154,"authors_free":[{"id":1728,"entry_id":1154,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary\r\non Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the \u03ba\u1f79\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities.\r\nFrom our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding\r\nof Simplicius\u2019 way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius\u2019 interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JEG1kUm2Lx3tmEf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1154,"section_of":289,"pages":"101-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T1HDXUI5JWMgcGy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
| Pages | 185-223 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Steel, C. |
| Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
| Translator(s) |
| There is undoubtedly a Platonic motivation in the commentators’ refusal to accept Aristotle’s claim about the connection of thinking with phantasms as universally valid. After all, it is even plausible that Aristotle was himself implicitly reacting against Plato’s view in Republic VI (510 C–511 C) that thinking – νόησις contrary to διάνοια – is without images. However, even if their Platonic perspective is undeniable, the ancient commentators also have, as I hope to show, valuable arguments to restrict Aristotle’s claim to some forms of knowledge. In this contribution I will discuss the views of four commentators of late antiquity: Themistius, Ammonius (as reported by Philoponus), John Philoponus (in his lectures as reported by a student), and Priscian of Lydia (Pseudo-Simplicius). But before I turn to the commentators I have to recall briefly Plotinus, who was himself an intensive reader of the Aristotelian treatise On the Soul, but interpreted it in his own manner. [Introduction, pp. 187 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SmsiEQFvYEh7kIN |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1170","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1170,"authors_free":[{"id":1746,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, C.","free_first_name":"C.","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":2507,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis","main_title":{"title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis"},"abstract":"There is undoubtedly a Platonic\r\nmotivation in the commentators\u2019 refusal to accept Aristotle\u2019s claim about the\r\nconnection of thinking with phantasms as universally valid. After all, it is even plausible that Aristotle was himself implicitly reacting against Plato\u2019s view in Republic VI (510 C\u2013511 C) that thinking \u2013 \u03bd\u1f79\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 contrary to\r\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f71\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u2013 is without images. However, even if their Platonic perspective is undeniable, the ancient commentators also have, as I hope to show, valuable\r\narguments to restrict Aristotle\u2019s claim to some forms of knowledge.\r\nIn this contribution I will discuss the views of four commentators of late antiquity: Themistius, Ammonius (as reported by Philoponus), John Philoponus (in his lectures as reported by a student), and Priscian of Lydia (Pseudo-Simplicius). But before I turn to the commentators I have to recall briefly Plotinus, who was himself an intensive reader of the Aristotelian treatise On the Soul, but interpreted it in his own manner. [Introduction, pp. 187 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SmsiEQFvYEh7kIN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1170,"section_of":289,"pages":"185-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T1HDXUI5JWMgcGy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity |
| Pages | 569-579 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A. |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristotle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Simplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the Enchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good working picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0vKTn6WTHOuGWRm |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2357,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2368,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2369,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0vKTn6WTHOuGWRm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Publication Place | Leuven |
| Publisher | KU Leuven, Humanities and Social Sciences Group, Institute of Philosophy |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The aim of this study was to analyze Simplicius’ explanation of qualitative properties in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. In this commentary, Simplicius discusses qualities in the framework of Aristotle’s categorial scheme and neither explicitly emphasizes the topic nor particularly problematizes it. In order to analyze Simplicius’ conception of quality, it was thus necessary to compile and systematize his remarks on qualities or remarks that might be relevant for an explanation of qualities from different places in the text. I grouped the different information in three main parts, each consisting of two to four chapters. The first part set out to provide some general information on Simplicius, his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories and the notion of quality in Aristotle in order to pave the way for an analysis of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities. While the second part remained to a large extent within the terminological framework of the Categories, the third part mainly drew on Neoplatonic theorems and focused on the ontological explanation of qualities within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. In what follows, I will summarize the results of the three main parts of the study and present difficulties that the study faced, shortcomings that the study includes and questions that the study evokes. The first part of the study elaborated on Simplicius’ exegesis and the place of his commentary in the Neoplatonic commentary tradition on Aristotle’s Categories. Its aim was to provide the reader with the textual and theoretical context in and with which Simplicius works. Hence, it focused in part on Simplicius as a member of the Neoplatonic school and his commentary as a part and witness of an exegetical tradition on Aristotle’s Categories that began centuries before Simplicius. However, Simplicius’ philosophical background, his sources and his presuppositions regarding Aristotle’s Categories are relevant for a study of his conception of qualities because they influence his treatment of the topic. Although Simplicius appears to have a keen interest in Aristotle’s text, he interprets it against the background of his own Neoplatonic views. As it has been pointed out in the first part of the study, there is the difficulty that Simplicius does not spell out or elaborate on Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrine in his commentary. Since the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework represents the theoretical framework in and with which Simplicius works, an understanding of its principles is necessary for an understanding of Simplicius’ discussions. In order to provide an explanation of Neoplatonic metaphysical assumptions when necessary, I thus relied on information that can be found in Neoplatonic authors prior to Simplicius. This way of proceeding implies the problematic assumption that Simplicius does not deviate from these authors regarding the understanding of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. This assumption is problematic because it may obscure Simplicius’ actual position if it differs. At least on the basis of Simplicius’ text, there is no indication that Simplicius’ conception of general elements of Neoplatonic metaphysics would differ from that of his predecessors. It has been pointed out that Simplicius frequently refers to predecessors and even states explicitly that, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, he follows the commentaries by Porphyry and Iamblichus in their interpretation of the Categories. Simplicius’ commentaries are well known for the richness of references to and presentations of views held by predecessors. He has often been used as a source of information on other philosophers for works that are no longer extant otherwise. His Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories is no exception; it is rich in references to philosophers belonging not only to the Neoplatonic tradition but also to other philosophical traditions, such as Stoicism or the Peripatetic school. The present study does not elaborate on references to members of other philosophical schools. A lot could have been said about Simplicius’ presentation and discussion of views held by these philosophers. It may even be fruitful to examine in detail Simplicius’ treatment and use of views held by philosophers working in the Stoic or Peripatetic tradition. Such investigations would also be interesting for our understanding of the historical development of certain concepts. The omission thus requires an explanation. The explanation is, admittedly, of a rather pragmatic nature. A discussion of all the views that Simplicius mentions would have exceeded the scope of this study. A selection always requires good reasons. Apart from Porphyry and Iamblichus, I could not justify in a consistent manner, with regard to the topic of this study, why I would focus on the one view more than on the other. Hence, although I think that it would be interesting to investigate the possible influences of, for example, Alexander of Aphrodisias or of Stoic views on Simplicius, I did not conduct such investigations in this study. They may be topics for possible future projects. As stated, the main sources for his commentary are, according to Simplicius himself, Porphyry’s long commentary on the Categories and, even to a bigger extent, Iamblichus’ commentary. The unfortunate fact that the two commentaries are no longer extant and Simplicius’ modest self-presentation as a commentator make it difficult to assess the proportion between copying or paraphrasing his sources and presenting own ideas in Simplicius’ commentary. It has also been pointed out that some, if not all, presuppositions of Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Categories stem from his main source Iamblichus. Simplicius’ core presuppositions are his interpretation of the Categories’ σκοπός as a synthesis of words, beings and notions, his assumption that the main source of the Categories is the Pseudo-Pythagorean treatise On the Universal Formulae by Pseudo-Archytas, his conviction that Aristotle uses obscurity on purpose in his writings and the assumption that there is a harmony between Aristotle and Plato on the majority of points. As it has been shown in the course of the study, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, Simplicius appears to extend the idea of a harmony also to Porphyry and Iamblichus. Besides the attempt to provide the philosophical background of Simplicius’ commentary, to contextualize it within the commentary tradition on the Categories, and to introduce Simplicius’ main sources and core presuppositions in this commentary, the first part also includes an overview of the accounts of quality that can be found in Aristotle’s works. This overview is meant to show that Aristotle approaches qualities from different perspectives in his works. I distinguished between two main approaches: 1. the explanation of qualities from a logical-metaphysical perspective, included, for example, in Aristotle’s Categories and Metaphysics, and 2. the explanation of qualities from the perspective of natural philosophy, included, for example, in Aristotle’s De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione. As the analyses especially in part three suggested, Simplicius appears not only to be well acquainted with the explanations of qualities that Aristotle presents elsewhere, he also integrates elements of these explanations into his discussion of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius’ explanation of quality. As stated, in order to analyze Simplicius’ conception of quality, it was necessary to compile and systematize relevant remarks from different places in the text. This way of proceeding requires caution, as it runs the risk of neglecting the context of the relevant individual passages. Given that Simplicius works closely and in sequence with Aristotle’s text and discusses aspects of the text within the framework of the lemmata on which he comments, a consideration of the context, however, is as important as a thorough analysis of the relevant passages themselves. The present study tried to accommodate both methodological strategies. It thereby runs another risk common to compromises, namely to fail to do both a thorough investigation of individual passages and a consideration of the context properly. I gave priority to the thought that both methodological strategies are indispensable for an understanding of Simplicius’ conception of qualities. The second part aimed at providing a categorial analysis of quality. It focused on quality as one of the ten Aristotelian categories and thus dealt with the regulations and characteristics that apply to quality qua category. Aristotle draws a distinction between the category of substance and the other nine categories in that he ascribes an ontological priority to the former. As suggested by Aristotle’s fourfold division of τὰ ὄντα in the second chapter of the Categories but not explicitly articulated with regard to any of the nine non-substantial categories, Simplicius transposes the intracategorial structure and regulations spelled out for the category of substance onto the category of quality. The category of quality thus comprises genera and species of quality and their individual instantiations. Moreover, the genera of quality are synonymously predicated of their species which in turn are synonymously predicated of their instantiations. According to the rule of transitivity, which equally applies, the genera of quality are consequently also synonymously predicated of the instantiations. While the intracategorial relation, i.e. the relation between genera and species and instantiations of quality, is a relation of unilinear synonymous predication, the intercategorial relation, i.e. the relation between a quality and a substance, is a relation of homonymous predication. Although Aristotle does not explicitly mention all these features of quality in his Categories, they are compatible with his text. Aristotle’s text leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation which not only facilitates the transposition of regulations and structural elements within the categorial theory itself but also enables the integration of, or harmonization with, (Neo)Platonic theoretical elements. Simplicius’ harmonizing tendency as an interpretative strategy becomes most apparent in the analyses conducted in the second part of this study. It is suggested by Simplicius’ way of presenting predication and participation as two different but non-conflicting theories used to explain the relation among entities in the natural realm, by his interpretation of the predicate as an immanent universal, by his explanation of the ἴδιον of quality against the background of likeness and unlikeness and by his use of the idea of a latitude of participation in his discussion of the question whether the category of quality admits of a more and a less. The discussions in the second part have also shown that some problems or questions that scholars have raised with regard to Aristotle’s text appeared to be unproblematic for Simplicius, such as the compatibility of the categorial theory with hylomorphism or the interpretation of homonymy as comprehensive homonymy. It is worth noting that Simplicius displays a charitable interpretation of Aristotle’s text with regard to these questions. Other topics discussed in Aristotelian scholarship are more problematic for Simplicius, especially those which are in apparent conflict with Platonic doctrine. He explicitly addresses the apparent primacy of individual substances in the Categories and tries at length to reconcile it with the Platonic view that the forms are prior to the individuals. He does not openly address 219 but implicitly deviates from the assumption held by many Aristotelian scholars that synonymous predication yields essential predication. He argues that, although genera, species and differentiae are all synonymously predicated of that which is beneath them, only genera and species are also essentially predicated of that which is beneath them whereas the differentiae are not essentially but qualitatively predicated of that which is beneath them. It also becomes apparent in the second part that the study of quality in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories includes an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified. The differentiation of the possible meanings of the qualified represents the basis, or preparatory work, for such an analysis. The third part of the study exceeds to some extent the categorial framework and expands on the Neoplatonic elements of Simplicius’ explanation of quality and its relation to the qualified. In this regard, it also elaborates on certain notions that have already been introduced in the second part but become most relevant in the context of an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified within a Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The notion of participation is one of them. Simplicius does not only present participation, like predication, as a model to explain the relation between intracategorial entities in his omments on chapter five but he also explicitly applies it to the entities subsumed under the category of quality, when he refers to the quality as μετεχόμενον and to the qualified as μετέχον. Simplicius associates quality and the qualified with these two elements of the Neoplatonic triad of participation and analogically applies the characteristics of those elements (and their relation to each other) to quality and the qualified (and their relation to each other). For an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified, it was thus helpful to have a closer look at the structure of the triad of participation, and especially at its elements, their characteristics and their relations to each other. The association of quality with the μετεχόμενον and of the qualified with the μετέχον, however, transfers a problem to the category of quality that Simplicius, like other Neoplatonists, mainly discusses in the course of his comments on the category of substance: the question of ontological dependence and, particularly, whether the ontological relation between quality and the qualified is a relation of ontological priority and posteriority or of ontological simultaneity. Simplicius describes quality as that which is participated in by the qualified, as that which is in the qualified and of which its being and its being participated in is one. The qualified in turn participates in quality and receives its being qualified from the quality. Simplicius thus appears to describe the relation between quality and the qualified, on the one hand, as a relation of an ontological priority of the quality over the qualified and, on the other hand, as a relation of ontological simultaneity. It has been shown in the third part of the study that it is possible to reconcile these apparently conflicting assumptions in Simplicius by means of two disambiguations: first, the differentiation of ontological priority into existential priority and essential priority and, second, the distinction between qualified qua single instantiation of the corresponding quality and qualified qua sum of all instantiations of the corresponding quality. While these investigations of the relation between quality and the qualified conducted in the first two chapters of the third part of the study involve the understanding of the qualified as an instantiation of the corresponding quality, the analyses of the third and fourth chapter involve the understanding of the qualified as a qualified substance. If the qualified is understood as a qualified substance, an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified evokes several questions. The third chapter deals with the following two: first, how can differences among participants of the same quality be explained, i.e. what is the reason for gradual differences of participation or instantiations and, second, how can it be explained that a particular quality is instantiated in one substance rather than in another substance, i.e. what is the condition for participation as such. In order to answer these questions, the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης becomes crucial. This notion had already been introduced in the second part of the study in the course of an analysis of the more and the less in the category of quality. As stated, Simplicius connects this question with the idea that participation involves latitude. The latitude of participation, in turn, is in accordance with the participant’s ἐπιτηδειότης to receive the information from that in which it participates. The use of the notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in the context of the analysis of the relation between quality and qualified has its roots in the use of ἐπιτηδειότης in the theory of participation established by Simplicius’ predecessors, where it frequently occurs as an aspect of the explanation of the relation between μετεχόμενον and μετέχον. However, the question whether ἐπιτηδειότης is a technical term in late Antiquity or a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις has been a subject of debate among scholars. Since also Simplicius uses these two terms, especially in his comments on the category of quality, I tried to clarify Simplicius’ understanding of ἐπιτηδειότης and of the relation between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his comments on quality. The analysis in the third chapter suggested that Simplicius distinguishes between a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις and a sense of ἐπιτηδειότης that cannot be associated with the Aristotelian notion of δύναμις. Ἐπιτηδειότης in the latter sense is simpler, precedes δύναμις and appears to be a simple propensity of the participant for something more complete than itself, rooted in higher principles within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The difficulty that this analysis faced was the fact that, although it was suggested by Simplicius’ remarks, Simplicius himself does not explicitly distinguish between ἐπιτηδειότης and δύναμις in his comments on the category of quality. As I argued, however, this fact could be interpreted again as a strategy to accommodate and harmonize the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian theory. The fourth and last chapter deals with another important question that arises in the framework of an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified qua qualified substance. Based on the possibility to distinguish between attributes that always belong to their subjects and are even completive or essential to their subject and attributes that are adventitious to their subject, the question of the categorial status of essential qualities arises. While the classification of adventitious attributes as accidents appears to be more or less unproblematic, the integration of completive attributes into Aristotle’s categorial scheme poses a problem. The answer to this question builds on the results of the previous analyses and eventually leads to the attempt to present a comprehensive answer to the initial question of the categorial status and the ontological explanation of qualities (both essential and adventitious qualities) in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. By means of an analysis of different passages on, or involving, essential qualities and a comparison with Simplicius’ conception of differentiae, I argued against the claim held by scholars that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as substances. According to the interpretation presented in the fourth chapter, Simplicius ascribes both a substantial and a qualitative aspect to essential qualities and differentiae. Depending on the context, he stresses the one or the other aspect. Simplicius, a proponent of the idea that Aristotle’s categorial scheme is complete and exhaustive, does not appear to think that these entities would not fit into Aristotle’s scheme. Rather, Simplicius explains their double structure by their participation in both substance and quality. He does not discuss or even problematize the fact that such a conception would challenge Aristotle’s scheme. Interestingly, Simplicius’ assumption that these entities are substantial but no substances also suggests that he distinguishes between that which is substantial and that which is a substance. Although Simplicius undoubtedly conceives of those qualities as being substantial, he appears to distinguish them from substances and restricts the latter to matter, form and the matter-form compound. By means of a recourse to Proclus’ remarks in his Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, I tried to show that such a distinction including essential qualities can already be found among Simplicius’ predecessors. Moreover, I tried to present an ontological explanation of qualities that takes Simplicius’ remarks on both essential and adventitious qualities into account. I argued that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as belonging to the immanent form which sends forth these qualities as soon as it unfolds itself in body. These qualities thus naturally inhere in the subject and cannot be separated without the corruption of the subject. Adventitious qualities are immanent logoi which do not belong to the form. They enter the subject after the compounding of matter and form; or in other words, the participation in these logoi is posterior to the constitution of the subject. In this way, they come in from outside and can be separated without the corruption of the subject. However, they do not appear to operate independently from the immanent form. The immanent form prefigures the subject, limits its possibilities in participation and determines its capacities for receiving contraries. It thereby establishes the conditions for these logoi to operate. As it has been pointed out, Simplicius does not transfer the distinction between essential and adventitious to the level of natural logoi and, consequently, does not make the logos of each quality twofold. On the contrary, he restricts this distinction to the realm of bodies and can thus maintain the assumption that the logos of each quality is one. This account is an attempt to provide a consistent explanation of qualities in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. However, it leaves a number of questions open for further research. One group of questions concerns the relation between essential qualities and differentiae. As stated, Simplicius does not only treat them similarly, he also often uses the same examples for essential qualities and differentiae. This situation is probably the reason why scholars on Simplicius have discussed these topics together (with different results though). However, if both differentiae and essential qualities are substantial and belong to the form but are not substances, the question arises how their differences can be explained. One of these differences is that, according to Simplicius, an essential quality, such as the whiteness of snow, can admit of a more and a less, whereas no differentia admits of a more and a less. A related question regarding differentiae is the following: if the differentiae are intermediates and participate in both substance and quality, why is there actually no differentia that admits of a more and a less? Is there, eventually, perhaps a distinction or hierarchy among essential attributes? On the basis of the analysis of essential and adventitious qualities, Simplicius’ conception of immanent forms is a topic that is highly interesting and would deserve further investigation. According to the analysis conducted in the last chapter, both essential qualities and adventitious qualities depend on immanent forms. The former do so because they belong to this form, the latter because the immanent form prefigures the subject and thus determines what qualities it can receive and to what extent it can receive them. In connection with this topic, it would also be interesting to investigate the question as to what there are natural logoi of. Another highly interesting topic linked to the research conducted in this study would be the comparison of Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories with the presentation of material properties in the framework of a discussion of Plato’s geometric atomism included in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus and Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo. Such a comparison could be very interesting because it may contribute to the clarification of strategies that some Neoplatonists have adopted in order to deal with the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories about elemental constitution (including elemental properties) and may thus contribute to our understanding of Neoplatonic natural philosophy in general. Although I think that this comparison is highly interesting, I have focused in this study on Simplicius’ explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. I hope that the preceding pages have shown that this explanation was worth a study of its own. [conclusion, pp. 215-223] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Lz85xNWHRXpvd29 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1395","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1395,"authors_free":[{"id":2171,"entry_id":1395,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"The explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"The aim of this study was to analyze Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualitative properties in his \r\nCommentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. In this commentary, Simplicius discusses qualities in \r\nthe framework of Aristotle\u2019s categorial scheme and neither explicitly emphasizes the topic nor \r\nparticularly problematizes it. In order to analyze Simplicius\u2019 conception of quality, it was thus \r\nnecessary to compile and systematize his remarks on qualities or remarks that might be \r\nrelevant for an explanation of qualities from different places in the text. I grouped the \r\ndifferent information in three main parts, each consisting of two to four chapters. The first \r\npart set out to provide some general information on Simplicius, his Commentary on \r\nAristotle\u2019s Categories and the notion of quality in Aristotle in order to pave the way for an \r\nanalysis of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. \r\nThe second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities. \r\nWhile the second part remained to a large extent within the terminological framework of the \r\nCategories, the third part mainly drew on Neoplatonic theorems and focused on the \r\nontological explanation of qualities within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. In what \r\nfollows, I will summarize the results of the three main parts of the study and present \r\ndifficulties that the study faced, shortcomings that the study includes and questions that the \r\nstudy evokes. \r\nThe first part of the study elaborated on Simplicius\u2019 exegesis and the place of his commentary \r\nin the Neoplatonic commentary tradition on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Its aim was to provide the \r\nreader with the textual and theoretical context in and with which Simplicius works. Hence, it \r\nfocused in part on Simplicius as a member of the Neoplatonic school and his commentary as a \r\npart and witness of an exegetical tradition on Aristotle\u2019s Categories that began centuries \r\nbefore Simplicius. However, Simplicius\u2019 philosophical background, his sources and his \r\npresuppositions regarding Aristotle\u2019s Categories are relevant for a study of his conception of \r\nqualities because they influence his treatment of the topic. Although Simplicius appears to \r\nhave a keen interest in Aristotle\u2019s text, he interprets it against the background of his own \r\nNeoplatonic views. As it has been pointed out in the first part of the study, there is the \r\ndifficulty that Simplicius does not spell out or elaborate on Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrine \r\nin his commentary. Since the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework represents the theoretical \r\nframework in and with which Simplicius works, an understanding of its principles is necessary for an understanding of Simplicius\u2019 discussions. In order to provide an explanation of Neoplatonic metaphysical assumptions when necessary, I thus relied on information that can be found in Neoplatonic authors prior to Simplicius. This way of proceeding implies the problematic assumption that Simplicius does not deviate from these authors regarding the understanding of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. This assumption is problematic because it may obscure Simplicius\u2019 actual position if it differs. At least on the basis of Simplicius\u2019 text, there is no indication that Simplicius\u2019 conception of general elements of Neoplatonic metaphysics would differ from that of his predecessors. \r\nIt has been pointed out that Simplicius frequently refers to predecessors and even states explicitly that, in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, he follows the commentaries by Porphyry and Iamblichus in their interpretation of the Categories. Simplicius\u2019 commentaries are well known for the richness of references to and presentations of views held by \r\npredecessors. He has often been used as a source of information on other philosophers for \r\nworks that are no longer extant otherwise. His Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories is no \r\nexception; it is rich in references to philosophers belonging not only to the Neoplatonic tradition but also to other philosophical traditions, such as Stoicism or the Peripatetic school. The present study does not elaborate on references to members of other philosophical schools. A lot could have been said about Simplicius\u2019 presentation and discussion of views held by these philosophers. It may even be fruitful to examine in detail Simplicius\u2019 treatment and use of views held by philosophers working in the Stoic or Peripatetic tradition. Such \r\ninvestigations would also be interesting for our understanding of the historical development of \r\ncertain concepts. The omission thus requires an explanation. The explanation is, admittedly, \r\nof a rather pragmatic nature. A discussion of all the views that Simplicius mentions would \r\nhave exceeded the scope of this study. A selection always requires good reasons. Apart from \r\nPorphyry and Iamblichus, I could not justify in a consistent manner, with regard to the topic \r\nof this study, why I would focus on the one view more than on the other. Hence, although I \r\nthink that it would be interesting to investigate the possible influences of, for example, \r\nAlexander of Aphrodisias or of Stoic views on Simplicius, I did not conduct such investigations in this study. They may be topics for possible future projects. As stated, the main sources for his commentary are, according to Simplicius himself, \r\nPorphyry\u2019s long commentary on the Categories and, even to a bigger extent, Iamblichus\u2019 \r\ncommentary. The unfortunate fact that the two commentaries are no longer extant and \r\nSimplicius\u2019 modest self-presentation as a commentator make it difficult to assess the \r\nproportion between copying or paraphrasing his sources and presenting own ideas in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentary. It has also been pointed out that some, if not all, presuppositions of \r\nSimplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories stem from his main source Iamblichus. Simplicius\u2019 core presuppositions are his interpretation of the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 as a synthesis of words, beings and notions, his assumption that the main source of the Categories is the Pseudo-Pythagorean treatise On the Universal Formulae by Pseudo-Archytas, his conviction that Aristotle uses obscurity on purpose in his writings and the assumption that there is a harmony between Aristotle and Plato on the majority of points. As it has been shown in the course of the study, in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Simplicius appears to extend the idea of a harmony also to Porphyry and Iamblichus. \r\nBesides the attempt to provide the philosophical background of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, to contextualize it within the commentary tradition on the Categories, and to introduce Simplicius\u2019 main sources and core presuppositions in this commentary, the first part also includes an overview of the accounts of quality that can be found in Aristotle\u2019s works. This overview is meant to show that Aristotle approaches qualities from different perspectives in his works. I distinguished between two main approaches: 1. the explanation of qualities from \r\na logical-metaphysical perspective, included, for example, in Aristotle\u2019s Categories and Metaphysics, and 2. the explanation of qualities from the perspective of natural philosophy, \r\nincluded, for example, in Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione. As the \r\nanalyses especially in part three suggested, Simplicius appears not only to be well acquainted \r\nwith the explanations of qualities that Aristotle presents elsewhere, he also integrates elements \r\nof these explanations into his discussion of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nCategories. The second and third part focused on different aspects of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of quality. As stated, in order to analyze Simplicius\u2019 conception of quality, it was necessary to compile \r\nand systematize relevant remarks from different places in the text. This way of proceeding \r\nrequires caution, as it runs the risk of neglecting the context of the relevant individual \r\npassages. Given that Simplicius works closely and in sequence with Aristotle\u2019s text and \r\ndiscusses aspects of the text within the framework of the lemmata on which he comments, a \r\nconsideration of the context, however, is as important as a thorough analysis of the relevant \r\npassages themselves. The present study tried to accommodate both methodological strategies. \r\nIt thereby runs another risk common to compromises, namely to fail to do both a thorough investigation of individual passages and a consideration of the context properly. I gave priority to the thought that both methodological strategies are indispensable for an \r\nunderstanding of Simplicius\u2019 conception of qualities. The second part aimed at providing a categorial analysis of quality. It focused on quality as one of the ten Aristotelian categories and thus dealt with the regulations and characteristics that apply to quality qua category. Aristotle draws a distinction between the category of substance and the other nine categories in that he ascribes an ontological priority to the former. As suggested by Aristotle\u2019s fourfold division of \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 in the second chapter of the Categories but not explicitly articulated with regard to any of the nine non-substantial \r\ncategories, Simplicius transposes the intracategorial structure and regulations spelled out for the category of substance onto the category of quality. The category of quality thus comprises \r\ngenera and species of quality and their individual instantiations. Moreover, the genera of \r\nquality are synonymously predicated of their species which in turn are synonymously \r\npredicated of their instantiations. According to the rule of transitivity, which equally applies, \r\nthe genera of quality are consequently also synonymously predicated of the instantiations. \r\nWhile the intracategorial relation, i.e. the relation between genera and species and \r\ninstantiations of quality, is a relation of unilinear synonymous predication, the intercategorial \r\nrelation, i.e. the relation between a quality and a substance, is a relation of homonymous \r\npredication. Although Aristotle does not explicitly mention all these features of quality in his \r\nCategories, they are compatible with his text. Aristotle\u2019s text leaves quite a lot of room for \r\ninterpretation which not only facilitates the transposition of regulations and structural \r\nelements within the categorial theory itself but also enables the integration of, or \r\nharmonization with, (Neo)Platonic theoretical elements. Simplicius\u2019 harmonizing tendency as \r\nan interpretative strategy becomes most apparent in the analyses conducted in the second part \r\nof this study. It is suggested by Simplicius\u2019 way of presenting predication and participation as \r\ntwo different but non-conflicting theories used to explain the relation among entities in the \r\nnatural realm, by his interpretation of the predicate as an immanent universal, by his \r\nexplanation of the \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of quality against the background of likeness and unlikeness and by \r\nhis use of the idea of a latitude of participation in his discussion of the question whether the \r\ncategory of quality admits of a more and a less. \r\nThe discussions in the second part have also shown that some problems or questions that \r\nscholars have raised with regard to Aristotle\u2019s text appeared to be unproblematic for \r\nSimplicius, such as the compatibility of the categorial theory with hylomorphism or the \r\ninterpretation of homonymy as comprehensive homonymy. It is worth noting that Simplicius \r\ndisplays a charitable interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s text with regard to these questions. Other \r\ntopics discussed in Aristotelian scholarship are more problematic for Simplicius, especially \r\nthose which are in apparent conflict with Platonic doctrine. He explicitly addresses the \r\napparent primacy of individual substances in the Categories and tries at length to reconcile it \r\nwith the Platonic view that the forms are prior to the individuals. He does not openly address \r\n219 \r\n \r\nbut implicitly deviates from the assumption held by many Aristotelian scholars that \r\nsynonymous predication yields essential predication. He argues that, although genera, species and differentiae are all synonymously predicated of that which is beneath them, only genera and species are also essentially predicated of that which is beneath them whereas the \r\ndifferentiae are not essentially but qualitatively predicated of that which is beneath them. It \r\nalso becomes apparent in the second part that the study of quality in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary \r\non Aristotle\u2019s Categories includes an analysis of the relation between quality and the \r\nqualified. The differentiation of the possible meanings of the qualified represents the basis, or \r\npreparatory work, for such an analysis. \r\nThe third part of the study exceeds to some extent the categorial framework and expands on \r\nthe Neoplatonic elements of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of quality and its relation to the \r\nqualified. In this regard, it also elaborates on certain notions that have already been introduced \r\nin the second part but become most relevant in the context of an analysis of the relation \r\nbetween quality and the qualified within a Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The notion \r\nof participation is one of them. Simplicius does not only present participation, like predication, as a model to explain the relation between intracategorial entities in his \r\nomments on chapter five but he also explicitly applies it to the entities subsumed under the \r\ncategory of quality, when he refers to the quality as \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and to the qualified as \r\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. Simplicius associates quality and the qualified with these two elements of the \r\nNeoplatonic triad of participation and analogically applies the characteristics of those elements (and their relation to each other) to quality and the qualified (and their relation to \r\neach other). For an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified, it was thus \r\nhelpful to have a closer look at the structure of the triad of participation, and especially at its \r\nelements, their characteristics and their relations to each other. The association of quality with \r\nthe \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and of the qualified with the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, however, transfers a problem to the \r\ncategory of quality that Simplicius, like other Neoplatonists, mainly discusses in the course of \r\nhis comments on the category of substance: the question of ontological dependence and, \r\nparticularly, whether the ontological relation between quality and the qualified is a relation of \r\nontological priority and posteriority or of ontological simultaneity. Simplicius describes \r\nquality as that which is participated in by the qualified, as that which is in the qualified and of \r\nwhich its being and its being participated in is one. The qualified in turn participates in quality \r\nand receives its being qualified from the quality. Simplicius thus appears to describe the \r\nrelation between quality and the qualified, on the one hand, as a relation of an ontological \r\npriority of the quality over the qualified and, on the other hand, as a relation of ontological simultaneity. It has been shown in the third part of the study that it is possible to reconcile \r\nthese apparently conflicting assumptions in Simplicius by means of two disambiguations: \r\nfirst, the differentiation of ontological priority into existential priority and essential priority \r\nand, second, the distinction between qualified qua single instantiation of the corresponding \r\nquality and qualified qua sum of all instantiations of the corresponding quality. While these investigations of the relation between quality and the qualified conducted in the first two \r\nchapters of the third part of the study involve the understanding of the qualified as an \r\ninstantiation of the corresponding quality, the analyses of the third and fourth chapter involve \r\nthe understanding of the qualified as a qualified substance. If the qualified is understood as a qualified substance, an analysis of the relation between \r\nquality and the qualified evokes several questions. The third chapter deals with the following \r\ntwo: first, how can differences among participants of the same quality be explained, i.e. what \r\nis the reason for gradual differences of participation or instantiations and, second, how can it be explained that a particular quality is instantiated in one substance rather than in another substance, i.e. what is the condition for participation as such. In order to answer these \r\nquestions, the notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 becomes crucial. This notion had already been \r\nintroduced in the second part of the study in the course of an analysis of the more and the less \r\nin the category of quality. As stated, Simplicius connects this question with the idea that \r\nparticipation involves latitude. The latitude of participation, in turn, is in accordance with the \r\nparticipant\u2019s \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 to receive the information from that in which it participates. The use of the notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the context of the analysis of the relation between quality \r\nand qualified has its roots in the use of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the theory of participation established by Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, where it frequently occurs as an aspect of the explanation of the \r\nrelation between \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. However, the question whether \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is \r\na technical term in late Antiquity or a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \r\nhas been a subject of debate among scholars. Since also Simplicius uses these two terms, \r\nespecially in his comments on the category of quality, I tried to clarify Simplicius\u2019 understanding of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and of the relation between \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 in his \r\ncomments on quality. The analysis in the third chapter suggested that Simplicius distinguishes \r\nbetween a sense of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 that can be associated with the Aristotelian notion of \r\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 and a sense of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 that cannot be associated with the Aristotelian notion of \r\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the latter sense is simpler, precedes \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 and appears to be a \r\nsimple propensity of the participant for something more complete than itself, rooted in higher principles within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. The difficulty that this analysis \r\nfaced was the fact that, although it was suggested by Simplicius\u2019 remarks, Simplicius himself \r\ndoes not explicitly distinguish between \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 in his comments on the category of quality. As I argued, however, this fact could be interpreted again as a strategy to \r\naccommodate and harmonize the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian theory. The fourth and last chapter deals with another important question that arises in the framework \r\nof an analysis of the relation between quality and the qualified qua qualified substance. Based \r\non the possibility to distinguish between attributes that always belong to their subjects and are \r\neven completive or essential to their subject and attributes that are adventitious to their \r\nsubject, the question of the categorial status of essential qualities arises. While the \r\nclassification of adventitious attributes as accidents appears to be more or less unproblematic, the integration of completive attributes into Aristotle\u2019s categorial scheme poses a problem. \r\nThe answer to this question builds on the results of the previous analyses and eventually leads \r\nto the attempt to present a comprehensive answer to the initial question of the categorial status \r\nand the ontological explanation of qualities (both essential and adventitious qualities) in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. \r\nBy means of an analysis of different passages on, or involving, essential qualities and a \r\ncomparison with Simplicius\u2019 conception of differentiae, I argued against the claim held by \r\nscholars that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as substances. According to the \r\ninterpretation presented in the fourth chapter, Simplicius ascribes both a substantial and a \r\nqualitative aspect to essential qualities and differentiae. Depending on the context, he stresses \r\nthe one or the other aspect. Simplicius, a proponent of the idea that Aristotle\u2019s categorial \r\nscheme is complete and exhaustive, does not appear to think that these entities would not fit \r\ninto Aristotle\u2019s scheme. Rather, Simplicius explains their double structure by their participation in both substance and quality. He does not discuss or even problematize the fact that such a conception would challenge Aristotle\u2019s scheme. Interestingly, Simplicius\u2019 assumption that these entities are substantial but no substances also suggests that he distinguishes between that which is substantial and that which is a substance. Although \r\nSimplicius undoubtedly conceives of those qualities as being substantial, he appears to \r\ndistinguish them from substances and restricts the latter to matter, form and the matter-form \r\ncompound. By means of a recourse to Proclus\u2019 remarks in his Commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus, I tried to show that such a distinction including essential qualities can already be \r\nfound among Simplicius\u2019 predecessors. Moreover, I tried to present an ontological explanation of qualities that takes Simplicius\u2019 remarks on both essential and adventitious qualities into account. I argued that Simplicius conceives of essential qualities as belonging to \r\nthe immanent form which sends forth these qualities as soon as it unfolds itself in body. These \r\nqualities thus naturally inhere in the subject and cannot be separated without the corruption of \r\nthe subject. Adventitious qualities are immanent logoi which do not belong to the form. They \r\nenter the subject after the compounding of matter and form; or in other words, the participation in these logoi is posterior to the constitution of the subject. In this way, they \r\ncome in from outside and can be separated without the corruption of the subject. However, \r\nthey do not appear to operate independently from the immanent form. The immanent form \r\nprefigures the subject, limits its possibilities in participation and determines its capacities for \r\nreceiving contraries. It thereby establishes the conditions for these logoi to operate. As it has \r\nbeen pointed out, Simplicius does not transfer the distinction between essential and adventitious to the level of natural logoi and, consequently, does not make the logos of each \r\nquality twofold. On the contrary, he restricts this distinction to the realm of bodies and can \r\nthus maintain the assumption that the logos of each quality is one. This account is an attempt to provide a consistent explanation of qualities in Simplicius\u2019 \r\nCommentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. However, it leaves a number of questions open for \r\nfurther research. One group of questions concerns the relation between essential qualities and \r\ndifferentiae. As stated, Simplicius does not only treat them similarly, he also often uses the \r\nsame examples for essential qualities and differentiae. This situation is probably the reason why scholars on Simplicius have discussed these topics together (with different results \r\nthough). However, if both differentiae and essential qualities are substantial and belong to the \r\nform but are not substances, the question arises how their differences can be explained. One \r\nof these differences is that, according to Simplicius, an essential quality, such as the whiteness \r\nof snow, can admit of a more and a less, whereas no differentia admits of a more and a less. A \r\nrelated question regarding differentiae is the following: if the differentiae are intermediates \r\nand participate in both substance and quality, why is there actually no differentia that admits \r\nof a more and a less? Is there, eventually, perhaps a distinction or hierarchy among essential \r\nattributes? On the basis of the analysis of essential and adventitious qualities, Simplicius\u2019 \r\nconception of immanent forms is a topic that is highly interesting and would deserve further \r\ninvestigation. According to the analysis conducted in the last chapter, both essential qualities \r\nand adventitious qualities depend on immanent forms. The former do so because they belong \r\nto this form, the latter because the immanent form prefigures the subject and thus determines \r\nwhat qualities it can receive and to what extent it can receive them. In connection with this \r\ntopic, it would also be interesting to investigate the question as to what there are natural logoi of. Another highly interesting topic linked to the research conducted in this study would be \r\nthe comparison of Simplicius\u2019 explanation of qualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nCategories with the presentation of material properties in the framework of a discussion of \r\nPlato\u2019s geometric atomism included in Proclus\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus and Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo. Such a comparison could be very interesting because it may contribute to the clarification of strategies that some Neoplatonists \r\nhave adopted in order to deal with the differences between Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s theories about elemental constitution (including elemental properties) and may thus contribute to our understanding of Neoplatonic natural philosophy in general. Although I think that this \r\ncomparison is highly interesting, I have focused in this study on Simplicius\u2019 explanation of \r\nqualities in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. I hope that the preceding pages have shown that this explanation was worth a study of its own. [conclusion, pp. 215-223]","btype":1,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Lz85xNWHRXpvd29","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1395,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"KU Leuven, Humanities and Social Sciences Group, Institute of Philosophy","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval |
| Volume | 43 |
| Pages | 13-39 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ lost commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2018 |
| Publication Place | Bologna |
| Publisher | Diogene |
| Series | Axiothéa |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar |
| Translator(s) |
| Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, è offerto in onore di Néstor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale “Socratica IV” a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1366","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1366,"authors_free":[{"id":2052,"entry_id":1366,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2053,"entry_id":1366,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Spangenberg","free_last_name":"Pilar","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","main_title":{"title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero"},"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | William of Moerbeke’s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Published in | ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero |
| Pages | 213-230 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kraus, Manfred |
| Editor(s) | Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar |
| Translator(s) |
| Although Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s treatise De cáelo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De Cáelo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke’s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius’ commentary and Moerbeke’s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke’s renderings of the seven direct quotations of passages from Parmenides exhibited in In De Cáelo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HEupyW7x7XP3WK5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"389","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":389,"authors_free":[{"id":510,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":221,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kraus, Manfred","free_first_name":"Manfred","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":221,"first_name":"Manfred","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1069796840","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2109,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2110,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Pilar","free_last_name":"Spangenberg","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Although Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s treatise De c\u00e1elo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De C\u00e1elo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke\u2019s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius\u2019 commentary and Moerbeke\u2019s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke\u2019s renderings of the seven direct quotations of \r\npassages from Parmenides exhibited in In De C\u00e1elo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HEupyW7x7XP3WK5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":221,"full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":389,"section_of":1366,"pages":"213-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pulpito_Spangenberg2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":389,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Axiothea","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"213-230"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2006 |
| Publication Place | Darmstadt |
| Publisher | Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Ackeren, Marcel van , Müller, Jörn |
| Translator(s) |
Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkarätig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verständnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster für den modernen Leser und erläutern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen können. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche Übersetzungsprobleme können auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente überhaupt überliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung älterer Texte, die für ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das für viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eoHoKEA5ouSKizP |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"306","_score":null,"_source":{"id":306,"authors_free":[{"id":383,"entry_id":306,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":485,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","free_first_name":"Marcel","free_last_name":"Ackeren, van","norm_person":{"id":485,"first_name":"Marcel","last_name":"Ackeren, van","full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129255769","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":384,"entry_id":306,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":486,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","free_first_name":"J\u00f6rn","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":486,"first_name":"J\u00f6rn","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132026864","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkar\u00e4tig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verst\u00e4ndnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster f\u00fcr den modernen Leser und erl\u00e4utern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen k\u00f6nnen. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche \u00dcbersetzungsprobleme k\u00f6nnen auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente \u00fcberhaupt \u00fcberliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung \u00e4lterer Texte, die f\u00fcr ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das f\u00fcr viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2006","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoHoKEA5ouSKizP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":485,"full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":486,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":306,"pubplace":"Darmstadt","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy"]}
| Title | Antiquités imaginaires. La référence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance à nos jours |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1996 |
| Publication Place | Paris |
| Publisher | Presses de l’École normale supérieure |
| Series | Études de littérature ancienne |
| Volume | 7 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Rinuy, Paul-Louis , Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.) |
| Translator(s) |
Rassemblant quatorze contributions de spécialistes de la littérature et de l’histoire de l’art, ce livre tente de donner une série d’aperçus précis des différentes manières dont la référence à l’Antiquité a joué un rôle, capital, dans la création artistique de la Renaissance à nos jours. De Raphaël jusqu’aux actuels mouvements « post-modernes », la création a été profondément marquée en Occident par les visages successifs d’une Antiquité sans cesse réinventée et réinterprétée. Ovide, Philostrate, Platon et Aristote ont été au coeur des débats et des réflexions des écrivains et des critiques, tout comme les chefs-d’oeuvre de l’architecture et de la sculpture – le Parthénon ou le Laocoon – ont inspiré les artistes au fil de leurs redécouvertes successives de l’art antique. Héritage, influence, réinvention, Classic revival, Nachleben der Antike ? Les mots et les expressions sont nombreux pour tenter de cerner un phénomène crucial et chatoyant. Les études ici réunies par Philippe Hoffmann, Paul-Louis Rinuy et Alexandre Farnoux, au terme d’un séminaire et d’une table ronde tenus au Centre d’études anciennes de l’École normale supérieure, veulent ouvrir des pistes pour de nouvelles recherches et illustrer divers aspects de la présence de l’Antique au sein des modernités [offical abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qxa2LkFETC5OrjL |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"165","_score":null,"_source":{"id":165,"authors_free":[{"id":216,"entry_id":165,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2020,"entry_id":165,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":186,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","free_first_name":"Paul-Louis ","free_last_name":"Rinuy","norm_person":{"id":186,"first_name":"Paul-Louis ","last_name":"Rinuy","full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14126795X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2021,"entry_id":165,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":187,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Alexandre","free_last_name":"Farnoux","norm_person":{"id":187,"first_name":"Alexandre ","last_name":"Farnoux","full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188370528","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Antiquit\u00e9s imaginaires. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours","main_title":{"title":"Antiquit\u00e9s imaginaires. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours"},"abstract":"Rassemblant quatorze contributions de sp\u00e9cialistes de la litt\u00e9rature et de l\u2019histoire de l\u2019art, ce livre tente de donner une s\u00e9rie d\u2019aper\u00e7us pr\u00e9cis des diff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res dont la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le, capital, dans la cr\u00e9ation artistique de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours.\r\nDe Rapha\u00ebl jusqu\u2019aux actuels mouvements \u00ab post-modernes \u00bb, la cr\u00e9ation a \u00e9t\u00e9 profond\u00e9ment marqu\u00e9e en Occident par les visages successifs d\u2019une Antiquit\u00e9 sans cesse r\u00e9invent\u00e9e et r\u00e9interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e. Ovide, Philostrate, Platon et Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 au coeur des d\u00e9bats et des r\u00e9flexions des \u00e9crivains et des critiques, tout comme les chefs-d\u2019oeuvre de l\u2019architecture et de la sculpture \u2013 le Parth\u00e9non ou le Laocoon \u2013 ont inspir\u00e9 les artistes au fil de leurs red\u00e9couvertes successives de l\u2019art antique. H\u00e9ritage, influence, r\u00e9invention, Classic revival, Nachleben der Antike ? Les mots et les expressions sont nombreux pour tenter de cerner un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne crucial et chatoyant. Les \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies par Philippe Hoffmann, Paul-Louis Rinuy et Alexandre Farnoux, au terme d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire et d\u2019une table ronde tenus au Centre d\u2019\u00e9tudes anciennes de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure, veulent ouvrir des pistes pour de nouvelles recherches et illustrer divers aspects de la pr\u00e9sence de l\u2019Antique au sein des modernit\u00e9s [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1996","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qxa2LkFETC5OrjL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":186,"full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":187,"full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":165,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Antiquit\u00e9s imaginaires. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours"]}
| Title | Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of περί τῆς ’Αληθείας |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1973 |
| Journal | L'Antiquité Classique |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 178-180 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rankin, Herbert David |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
A Note on ANTISTHENES FG. 50 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gQgSMArASTgKBgE |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"861","_score":null,"_source":{"id":861,"authors_free":[{"id":1265,"entry_id":861,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":296,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","free_first_name":"Herbert David","free_last_name":"Rankin","norm_person":{"id":296,"first_name":"Herbert David","last_name":"Rankin","full_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1058155474","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2","main_title":{"title":"Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2"},"abstract":"A Note on ANTISTHENES FG. 50","btype":3,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gQgSMArASTgKBgE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":296,"full_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":861,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"L'Antiquit\u00e9 Classique","volume":"42","issue":"1","pages":"178-180"}},"sort":["Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2"]}
| Title | Aperçu de la réception de la doctrine stoïcienne du mélange total dans le néoplatonisme après Plotin |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2007 |
| Journal | Revue de Philosophie Ancienne |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 67-100 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Cohen, Daniel |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This text provides an overview of the reception of Stoic doctrine on total mixture in Neoplatonism after Plotinus. It examines the fundamental data of the physics of mixture and its role in the development of Neoplatonic philosophy. The text distinguishes between three types of mixtures in Aristotelian and Stoic physics and highlights the Stoic doctrine of total mixture as a new starting point that influenced the development of Neoplatonic metaphysics. The Stoic theory of total mixture allowed the Stoics to explain how the divine agent (Logos) is present in the material universe. The text concludes by discussing how the Stoic doctrine of total mixture was transposed to the realm of immaterial and non-corporeal realities within Neoplatonism. [introdcution/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xthiD4rhIAwOYLZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1273","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1273,"authors_free":[{"id":1863,"entry_id":1273,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":51,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cohen, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Cohen","norm_person":{"id":51,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Cohen","full_name":"Cohen, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1024876659","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","main_title":{"title":"Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"},"abstract":"This text provides an overview of the reception of Stoic doctrine on total mixture in Neoplatonism after Plotinus. It examines the fundamental data of the physics of mixture and its role in the development of Neoplatonic philosophy. The text distinguishes between three types of mixtures in Aristotelian and Stoic physics and highlights the Stoic doctrine of total mixture as a new starting point that influenced the development of Neoplatonic metaphysics. The Stoic theory of total mixture allowed the Stoics to explain how the divine agent (Logos) is present in the material universe. The text concludes by discussing how the Stoic doctrine of total mixture was transposed to the realm of immaterial and non-corporeal realities within Neoplatonism. [introdcution\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xthiD4rhIAwOYLZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":51,"full_name":"Cohen, Daniel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1273,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"25 ","issue":"2","pages":"67-100"}},"sort":["Aper\u00e7u de la r\u00e9ception de la doctrine sto\u00efcienne du m\u00e9lange total dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"]}
| Title | Apories orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
| Pages | 120-156 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Henry, Paul |
| Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gLYCNWHNVhEIXp6 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"799","_score":null,"_source":{"id":799,"authors_free":[{"id":1179,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":175,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Henry, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Henry","norm_person":{"id":175,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Henry","full_name":"Henry, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1180,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gLYCNWHNVhEIXp6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":175,"full_name":"Henry, Paul","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":799,"section_of":189,"pages":"120-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1987a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9u1939JCTsnoDBo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"]}
| Title | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2004 |
| Publication Place | Paris |
| Publisher | Librairie générale française |
| Series | Le livre de poche : références |
| Volume | 603 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epictète, œuvre stoïcienne majeure du IIe siècle de notre ère, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel rédigé trois siècles plus tard par le néoplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces œuvres, de leurs caractéristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'étude de quelques thèmes choisis (la distinction de " ce qui dépend de nous " et de " ce qui ne dépend pas de nous ", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la piété, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et à la mort. Par là, ce livre à deux voix représente aussi et avant tout une méditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activité philosophique dans l'Antiquité ; comme l'écrivent les auteurs : " En utilisant la méthode exégétique, nous avons eu l'intention de répondre à une interrogation, à la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on à philosopher dans l'Antiquité ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de précieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TmBo6HjDaGcbGYU |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"218","_score":null,"_source":{"id":218,"authors_free":[{"id":279,"entry_id":218,"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}},{"id":280,"entry_id":218,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","main_title":{"title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien"},"abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TmBo6HjDaGcbGYU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien"]}
| Title | Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions – A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2001 |
| Journal | New Blackfriars |
| Volume | 82 |
| Issue | 968 |
| Pages | 467-478 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Boland, Vivian |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since for him, following Aristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition. But this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do in this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of ' habitus' or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope and charity which Christian tradition calls 'theological virtues'. It is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e. philosophical as distinct from theological. [Introduction, pp. 467 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YsbXUYxTy1D2KJ0 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1081","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1081,"authors_free":[{"id":1636,"entry_id":1081,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":9,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boland, Vivian","free_first_name":"Vivian","free_last_name":"Boland","norm_person":{"id":9,"first_name":"Vivian","last_name":"Boland","full_name":"Boland, Vivian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/94637645X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory"},"abstract":"A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since for him, following \r\nAristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition. But this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do \r\nin this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of ' habitus' or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope and charity which\r\nChristian tradition calls 'theological virtues'. It is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e. philosophical as distinct from theological. [Introduction, pp. 467 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YsbXUYxTy1D2KJ0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":9,"full_name":"Boland, Vivian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1081,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"New Blackfriars","volume":"82","issue":"968","pages":"467-478"}},"sort":["Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory"]}
| Title | Aquinas and the Platonists |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach |
| Pages | 279-324 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hankey, Wayne J. |
| Editor(s) | Gersh, Stephen , Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. |
| Translator(s) |
This pattern shows Thomas, both as a thinker and as an interpreter of the history of philosophy, to be an heir of the Peripatetic and Neoplatonic representations of Platonism, representations in which he was more and more immersed as his work continued. There was always a conflict between Iris conscious and his unconscious Platonism. But there was no necessity that this conflict should force him outside the tradition in which he placed himself. In fact, his most notable forerunners in this self-conflict are Augustine, as he himself gives evidence, and Dionysius, who in his Christian and Neoplatonic following of the Unknown God was probably as obscure to himself as he remains to us. And last we may add Boethius, who, like Augustine, needed Platonism to console his Christian death. [conclusion, last paragraph] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2jvhRNyXcIY5cZy |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1348","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1348,"authors_free":[{"id":2003,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":167,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","free_first_name":"Wayne J.","free_last_name":"Hankey","norm_person":{"id":167,"first_name":" Wayne J.","last_name":"Hankey","full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054015821","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2361,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":450,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gersh, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Gersh","norm_person":{"id":450,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Gersh","full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172508460","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2362,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":451,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","free_first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","free_last_name":"Hoenen","norm_person":{"id":451,"first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","last_name":"Hoenen","full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172140307","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and the Platonists","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and the Platonists"},"abstract":"This pattern shows Thomas, both as a thinker and as an interpreter of the history of philosophy, to be an heir of the Peripatetic and Neoplatonic representations of Platonism, representations in which he was more and more immersed as his work continued. There was always a conflict between Iris conscious and his unconscious Platonism. But there was no necessity that this conflict should force him outside the tradition in which he placed himself. In fact, his most notable forerunners in this self-conflict are Augustine, as he \r\nhimself gives evidence, and Dionysius, who in his Christian and Neoplatonic following of the Unknown God was probably as obscure to himself as he remains to us. And last we may add Boethius, who, like Augustine, needed Platonism to console his Christian death. [conclusion, last paragraph]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2jvhRNyXcIY5cZy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":167,"full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":450,"full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":451,"full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1348,"section_of":327,"pages":"279-324","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gersh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Das Handbuch beschreitet neue Wege in der Schilderung der komplexen Geschichte jener geistigen Str\u00f6mungen, die gemeinhin unter der Bezeichnung 'platonisch' bzw. 'neuplatonisch' zusammengefa\u00dft werden. Es behandelt in chronologischer Folge die bedeutendsten philosophischen Denkrichtungen innerhalb dieser Tradition. Die Beitr\u00e4ge untersuchen die wichtigsten platonischen Begriffe und ihre semantischen Implikationen, erl\u00e4utern die mit ihnen verbundenen philosophischen und theologischen Anspr\u00fcche, legen die Quellen der Begriffe dar und stellen sie in den Kontext der auf sie rekurrierenden bzw. ihnen zuwiderlaufenden geistigen Traditionen. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Bild des intellektuellen Lebens im Mittelalter und in der Fr\u00fchen Neuzeit. Das Werk enth\u00e4lt Beitr\u00e4ge in englischer und deutscher Sprache. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H3MECEb1xc1VQ4x","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":327,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aquinas and the Platonists"]}
| Title | Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2011 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 85-158 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the συμφωνία in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle’s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works to reduce the dissonance between Archytas’ and Aristotle’s words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XYj9lPTpSk9x4NP |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1312","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1312,"authors_free":[{"id":1946,"entry_id":1312,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation","main_title":{"title":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation"},"abstract":"Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle\u2019s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works to reduce the dissonance between Archytas\u2019 and Aristotle\u2019s words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XYj9lPTpSk9x4NP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1312,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"85-158"}},"sort":["Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation"]}
| Title | Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2011 |
| Publication Place | Napoli |
| Publisher | Bibliopolis |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Longo, Angela , Del Forno, Davide (Coll.) |
| Translator(s) |
2011 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6LdeHtq3FXVfiLu |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"355","_score":null,"_source":{"id":355,"authors_free":[{"id":462,"entry_id":355,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2402,"entry_id":355,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":464,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Davide","free_last_name":"Del Forno","norm_person":{"id":464,"first_name":"Davide","last_name":"Del Forno","full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1070718955","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy"},"abstract":"2011","btype":4,"date":"2011","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6LdeHtq3FXVfiLu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":464,"full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":355,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Bibliopolis","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy"]}