Author 229
Type of Media
Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity, 2011
By: Chase, Michael
Title Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity
Type Article
Language English
Date 2011
Journal ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition
Volume 5
Issue 2
Pages 111-173
Categories no categories
Author(s) Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1511","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1511,"authors_free":[{"id":2624,"entry_id":1511,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AiYh4J18MnRsxtC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1511,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u03a3\u03a7\u039f\u039b\u0397. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"2","pages":"111-173"}},"sort":[2011]}

OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels), 2011
By: Gregoric, Pavel, Helmig, Christoph
Title OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels)
Type Article
Language English
Date 2011
Journal Classical Quarterly
Volume 61
Issue 2
Pages 722-730
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gregoric, Pavel , Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The upshot of this article is that the treatment of the phrase ὁμόσε χωρεῖν in LSJ can be supplemented as far as later (Neoplatonic) authors are concerned. We have seen that the translation ‘to come to issue’ for the metaphorical meaning of the phrase is ambiguous and needs to be qualified according to the context. While the expression usually betrays an adversative connotation – to counter or refute an argument – later (Neoplatonic) authors also used it in a more neutral sense (‘to come to grips with an argument’). More to the point, the phrase can also have a concessive connotation, implying a concession or acceptance. It is precisely this latter connotation that we find in Simplicius’ Corollary on Place 601.26–8. [conclusion, p. 730]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"585","_score":null,"_source":{"id":585,"authors_free":[{"id":829,"entry_id":585,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":145,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","free_first_name":"Pavel","free_last_name":"Gregoric","norm_person":{"id":145,"first_name":"Pavel","last_name":"Gregoric","full_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":830,"entry_id":585,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Chistoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"OMO\u03a3E X\u03a9\u03a1EIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26\u20138 (Diels)","main_title":{"title":"OMO\u03a3E X\u03a9\u03a1EIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26\u20138 (Diels)"},"abstract":"The upshot of this article is that the treatment of the phrase \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in LSJ can be supplemented as far as later (Neoplatonic) authors are concerned. We have seen that the translation \u2018to come to issue\u2019 for the metaphorical meaning of the phrase is ambiguous and needs to be qualified according to the context. While the expression usually betrays an adversative connotation \u2013 to counter or refute an argument \u2013 later (Neoplatonic) authors also used it in a more neutral sense (\u2018to come to grips with an argument\u2019). More to the point, the phrase can also have a \r\nconcessive connotation, implying a concession or acceptance. It is precisely this \r\nlatter connotation that we find in Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place 601.26\u20138. [conclusion, p. 730]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NUEoM1d6g4gWxsi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":145,"full_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":585,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Quarterly","volume":"61","issue":"2","pages":"722-730"}},"sort":[2011]}

Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Title Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius
Type Article
Language French
Date 2011
Journal Études platoniciennes
Volume 8
Pages 145-160
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
La conciliation des doctrines au cœur de l'exégèse d'Aristote suit un parcours précis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture littérale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de façon surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d'Aristote contre elle-même : en faire non plus un adversaire de la théorie des Idées séparées, mais l'auteur d'un critère de validité de la séparation. Dans un deuxième temps, notre exégète s'emploie à montrer la teneur authentiquement aristotélicienne de cette doctrine des Idées séparées. Il isole d'abord les caractères reconnus aux Idées, avant de démontrer qu'ils sont admis au sein même de la pensée d'Aristote. De plus, étant donné que l'enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste à trouver chez Aristote la double caractérisation des Idées que leur attribuent leurs partisans - être à la fois des causes et des modèles semblables pour les réalités naturelles -, il répertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et insère des éléments provenant de la tradition néoplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les réalités qui admettent des Formes séparées et celles qui n'en admettent pas. Comme souvent chez Simplicius, l'examen aboutit à l'énoncé d'un critère net et précis. Il doit permettre ici de démarquer l'homonymie vulgaire des Idées de l'éponymie légitime. La première résulte d'un dépouillement de la forme en dehors de la matière, mais qui continue à raisonner à partir d'ici-bas : elle cherche des Idées séparées pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais être complètement abstraites de la matière à laquelle elles sont liées. La seconde reconnaît que certains noms sont propres aux composés ici-bas et, par conséquent, ne correspondent à aucune réalité là-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Idées, à la fois causes et modèles des composés ici-bas, qui possèdent une subsistance séparée. [conclusion, p. 160]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1313","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1313,"authors_free":[{"id":1947,"entry_id":1313,"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":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"La conciliation des doctrines au c\u0153ur de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d'Aristote suit un parcours pr\u00e9cis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture litt\u00e9rale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de fa\u00e7on surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d'Aristote contre elle-m\u00eame : en faire non plus un adversaire de la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es, mais l'auteur d'un crit\u00e8re de validit\u00e9 de la s\u00e9paration.\r\nDans un deuxi\u00e8me temps, notre ex\u00e9g\u00e8te s'emploie \u00e0 montrer la teneur authentiquement aristot\u00e9licienne de cette doctrine des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es. Il isole d'abord les caract\u00e8res reconnus aux Id\u00e9es, avant de d\u00e9montrer qu'ils sont admis au sein m\u00eame de la pens\u00e9e d'Aristote. De plus, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que l'enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste \u00e0 trouver chez Aristote la double caract\u00e9risation des Id\u00e9es que leur attribuent leurs partisans - \u00eatre \u00e0 la fois des causes et des mod\u00e8les semblables pour les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles -, il r\u00e9pertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et ins\u00e8re des \u00e9l\u00e9ments provenant de la tradition n\u00e9oplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s qui admettent des Formes s\u00e9par\u00e9es et celles qui n'en admettent pas.\r\nComme souvent chez Simplicius, l'examen aboutit \u00e0 l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d'un crit\u00e8re net et pr\u00e9cis. Il doit permettre ici de d\u00e9marquer l'homonymie vulgaire des Id\u00e9es de l'\u00e9ponymie l\u00e9gitime. La premi\u00e8re r\u00e9sulte d'un d\u00e9pouillement de la forme en dehors de la mati\u00e8re, mais qui continue \u00e0 raisonner \u00e0 partir d'ici-bas : elle cherche des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais \u00eatre compl\u00e8tement abstraites de la mati\u00e8re \u00e0 laquelle elles sont li\u00e9es. La seconde reconna\u00eet que certains noms sont propres aux compos\u00e9s ici-bas et, par cons\u00e9quent, ne correspondent \u00e0 aucune r\u00e9alit\u00e9 l\u00e0-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Id\u00e9es, \u00e0 la fois causes et mod\u00e8les des compos\u00e9s ici-bas, qui poss\u00e8dent une subsistance s\u00e9par\u00e9e. [conclusion, p. 160]\r\n","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b3rxLEWeKXAayJM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1313,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u00c9tudes platoniciennes","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"145-160"}},"sort":[2011]}

Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008, 2010
By: Janssens, Jules L.
Title Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008
Type Article
Language English
Date 2010
Journal Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume 72
Issue 1
Pages 193
Categories no categories
Author(s) Janssens, Jules L.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Het lijdt geen twijfel dat Baltussen met zijn Studie baanbrekend werk heeft geleverd. Hij toont op overtuigende wijze aan dat Simplicius meer was dan een 'archivaris'. Hij was daadwerkelijk een 'filosoof met een project. De grote lijnen hiervan worden in dit boek meesterlijk uitgetekend. [conclusion, p. 193]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1360","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1360,"authors_free":[{"id":2036,"entry_id":1360,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":205,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","free_first_name":"Jules L.","free_last_name":"Janssens","norm_person":{"id":205,"first_name":"Jules L.","last_name":"Janssens","full_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139312471","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008"},"abstract":"Het lijdt geen twijfel dat Baltussen met zijn Studie baanbrekend werk heeft geleverd. Hij toont op overtuigende wijze aan dat Simplicius meer was dan een 'archivaris'. Hij was daadwerkelijk een 'filosoof met een project. De grote lijnen hiervan \r\nworden in dit boek meesterlijk uitgetekend. [conclusion, p. 193]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tcjT26g8SMZmJ0w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":205,"full_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1360,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"72","issue":"1","pages":"193"}},"sort":[2010]}

I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio, 2010
By: Saudelli, Lucia
Title I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 2010
Journal Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica
Volume 96
Issue 3
Pages 127-137
Categories no categories
Author(s) Saudelli, Lucia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"855","_score":null,"_source":{"id":855,"authors_free":[{"id":1259,"entry_id":855,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":311,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","free_first_name":"Lucia","free_last_name":"Saudelli","norm_person":{"id":311,"first_name":"Lucia","last_name":"Saudelli","full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047619067","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio"},"abstract":"This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fGML586kM8C7Ufy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":311,"full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":855,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica","volume":"96","issue":"3","pages":"127-137"}},"sort":[2010]}

Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?, 2010
By: Morison, Benjamin
Title Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?
Type Article
Language English
Date 2010
Journal Phronesis
Volume 55
Issue 1
Pages 68-103
Categories no categories
Author(s) Morison, Benjamin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"954","_score":null,"_source":{"id":954,"authors_free":[{"id":1433,"entry_id":954,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":265,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morison, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Morison","norm_person":{"id":265,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Morison","full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1221826255","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?","main_title":{"title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?"},"abstract":"It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. ","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XyN4FMax5gOu9BV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":265,"full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":954,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"68-103"}},"sort":[2010]}

Cosmología, cosmogonía y teogonía en el poema de Parménides, 2010
By: Bredlow, Luis-Andrés
Title Cosmología, cosmogonía y teogonía en el poema de Parménides
Type Article
Language Spanish
Date 2010
Journal Emerita: Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clasíca
Volume 78
Issue 2
Pages 275-297
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bredlow, Luis-Andrés
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides’ system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius’ reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides’ cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and – as I will try to show – in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4).

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1071","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1071,"authors_free":[{"id":1625,"entry_id":1071,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":17,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_last_name":"Bredlow","norm_person":{"id":17,"first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","last_name":"Bredlow","full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129940305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides","main_title":{"title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides"},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius\u2019 reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and \u2013 as I will try to show \u2013 in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4).","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J4r7agyESQzvlQk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":17,"full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1071,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Emerita: Revista de Ling\u00fc\u00edstica y Filolog\u00eda Clas\u00edca","volume":"78","issue":"2","pages":"275-297"}},"sort":[2010]}

Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority, 2010
By: Baltussen, Han
Title Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority
Type Article
Language English
Date 2010
Journal Antiquorum Philosophial
Volume 3
Pages 121-136
Categories no categories
Author(s) Baltussen, Han
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius’ elaborate commentaries, written after 532 c.e., have always stood apart in the post-Plotinian tradition of late Platonism.1 Unlike many philosophical com- mentaries from 300-500 ad (Porphyry, Syrianus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius), they are not notes taken in class ‘from the voice of the teacher’ (apo phônês), they are not short on clear source references, nor are they, on the whole, cavalier in representing oth- er people’s views. Instead, they are very scholarly due to lavish source materials, full of actual quotations, and make use of source referencing. These features illustrate how he aims to be well-documented, responsible and comprehensive in his clarification of Aris- totle’s text. One other peculiarity which has been noted by students of late Platonism (also clarified in my recent study of his methodology),2 is his attempt to counteract the intellectual influence of Christianity and their accusations of disunity among pagans, against which they placed the unified theology of the Trinity: he aims to present the Greek philosophical tradition as unified. [p. 121]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"966","_score":null,"_source":{"id":966,"authors_free":[{"id":1451,"entry_id":966,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 elaborate commentaries, written after 532 c.e., have always stood apart\r\nin the post-Plotinian tradition of late Platonism.1 Unlike many philosophical com-\r\nmentaries from 300-500 ad (Porphyry, Syrianus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius), they\r\nare not notes taken in class \u2018from the voice of the teacher\u2019 (apo ph\u00f4n\u00eas), they are not\r\nshort on clear source references, nor are they, on the whole, cavalier in representing oth-\r\ner people\u2019s views. Instead, they are very scholarly due to lavish source materials, full of\r\nactual quotations, and make use of source referencing. These features illustrate how he\r\naims to be well-documented, responsible and comprehensive in his clarification of Aris-\r\ntotle\u2019s text. One other peculiarity which has been noted by students of late Platonism\r\n(also clarified in my recent study of his methodology),2 is his attempt to counteract the\r\nintellectual influence of Christianity and their accusations of disunity among pagans,\r\nagainst which they placed the unified theology of the Trinity: he aims to present the\r\nGreek philosophical tradition as unified. [p. 121]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9To60zNZe4T1kFt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":966,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophial","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"121-136"}},"sort":[2010]}

Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator, 2010
By: Menn, Stephen
Title Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator
Type Article
Language English
Date 2010
Journal The Classical World
Volume 104
Issue 1
Pages 117-118
Categories no categories
Author(s) Menn, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Review of: an Baltussen. Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator. London: Duckworth, 2008. Pp. xii, 292. $80.00. ISBN 978-0-7156-350

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"978","_score":null,"_source":{"id":978,"authors_free":[{"id":1477,"entry_id":978,"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":"Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"Review of: an Baltussen. Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology \r\nof a Commentator. London: Duckworth, 2008. Pp. xii, 292. $80.00. ISBN \r\n978-0-7156-350","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kyq7dKtLUkqGVRs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":978,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical World","volume":"104","issue":"1","pages":"117-118"}},"sort":[2010]}

Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment, 2010
By: McKirahan, Richard D.
Title Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment
Type Article
Language English
Date 2010
Journal Ancient Philosophy
Volume 30
Issue 1
Pages 1-14
Categories no categories
Author(s) McKirahan, Richard D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Notes on Parmenides B8.38

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"989","_score":null,"_source":{"id":989,"authors_free":[{"id":1490,"entry_id":989,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":253,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"McKirahan","norm_person":{"id":253,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"McKirahan","full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131702254","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment"},"abstract":"Notes on Parmenides B8.38","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cHUSTdkDuHSltbC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":253,"full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":989,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"30","issue":"1","pages":"1-14"}},"sort":[2010]}

  • PAGE 7 OF 34
Creation and Continuity In Neoplatonism: Origins and Legacy (forthcoming)
By: Chase, Michael
Title Creation and Continuity In Neoplatonism: Origins and Legacy (forthcoming)
Type Article
Language English
Categories no categories
Author(s) Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1406","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1406,"authors_free":[{"id":2197,"entry_id":1406,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Creation and Continuity In Neoplatonism: Origins and Legacy (forthcoming)","main_title":{"title":"Creation and Continuity In Neoplatonism: Origins and Legacy (forthcoming)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MW9qX9M0yhPEIoF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Creation and Continuity In Neoplatonism: Origins and Legacy (forthcoming)"]}

Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathématiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen?, 1997
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathématiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen?
Type Article
Language French
Date 1997
Journal The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume 1
Pages 42–107
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Th e historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes,  and  Isidorus)  sought  refuge  in  Persia  because  of  their  own  country’s  anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return.  Most  recently  M.  Tardieu  has  argued  that  these  philosophers  went  to  Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been  faced  by  Tardieu’s  critics.  For  example,  the  fact  that,  according  to  Arab  sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely  neglected,  as  has  the  fact  that  details  of  the  dogmas  of  Manicheanism,  which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by  D.  Watts  and  a  review  by  C.  Luna.  Watts  mostly  bases  his  criticisms  of  M. Tardieu and me on Luna’s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu’s hypothesis. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"698","_score":null,"_source":{"id":698,"authors_free":[{"id":1038,"entry_id":698,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?","main_title":{"title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"},"abstract":"Th e historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country\u2019s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu\u2019s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna\u2019s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu\u2019s hypothesis. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/02SsgCQOWvog4KZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":698,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"42\u2013107"}},"sort":["Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"]}

Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern, 1991
By: Dorandi, Tiziano
Title Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern
Type Article
Language German
Date 1991
Journal Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Volume 87
Pages 11–33
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dorandi, Tiziano
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"472","_score":null,"_source":{"id":472,"authors_free":[{"id":637,"entry_id":472,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":66,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dorandi, Tiziano ","free_first_name":"Tiziano ","free_last_name":"Dorandi","norm_person":{"id":66,"first_name":"Tiziano ","last_name":"Dorandi","full_name":"Dorandi, Tiziano ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139071954","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Den Autoren \u00fcber die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern","main_title":{"title":"Den Autoren \u00fcber die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1991","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PeqRfz0UCy8HKWU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":66,"full_name":"Dorandi, Tiziano ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":472,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Papyrologie und Epigraphik","volume":"87","issue":"","pages":"11\u201333"}},"sort":["Den Autoren \u00fcber die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern"]}

Der Bericht des Theophrast über Heraklit, 1955
By: Kerschensteiner, Jula
Title Der Bericht des Theophrast über Heraklit
Type Article
Language German
Date 1955
Journal Hermes
Volume 83
Issue 4
Pages 385-411
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kerschensteiner, Jula
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Die Hauptquelle für die Darstellung der Lehren Heraklits, die Theophrast in seinen Phusikôn doxai gab, ist der Bericht bei Diogenes Laertius 9, 7-II. Er zerfällt in zwei Teile, eine knappe Übersicht (im folgenden DL1) und ein ausführliches Referat (im folgenden DL2). Nach DIELS stammt DL1 aus einer Mittelquelle biographischer Tradition, auf die auch der Einschub mit den Zitaten und die Bemerkung über Heraklits Stil zurückgehe, der zweite Teil dagegen direkt aus Theophrast (Doxographi Graeci I63 f., vgl. auch I80). Dagegen hat K. DEICHGRABER, Bemerkungen zu Diogenes' Bericht fiber Heraklit (Philol. 93, I938, I2ff.) 23ff., zu zeigen versucht, daB es sich nicht um zwei verschiedene Fassungen derselben Vorlage handelt, sondern daß die beiden Teile schon urspruinglich zusammengehören und aufeinander abgestimmt seien, nur durch den spateren Einschub unterbrochen: der Aufbau entspreche der Gewohnheit Theophrasts, den Einzeldarlegungen eine allgemeine Übersicht vorauszuschicken. Eine Klärung des Problems wird sich im folgenden ergeben. [introduction, p. 25]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1368","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1368,"authors_free":[{"id":2061,"entry_id":1368,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":233,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kerschensteiner, Jula","free_first_name":"Jula","free_last_name":"Kerschensteiner","norm_person":{"id":233,"first_name":"Jula","last_name":"Kerschensteiner","full_name":"Kerschensteiner, Jula","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116142448","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Bericht des Theophrast \u00fcber Heraklit","main_title":{"title":"Der Bericht des Theophrast \u00fcber Heraklit"},"abstract":"Die Hauptquelle f\u00fcr die Darstellung der Lehren Heraklits, die Theophrast in seinen Phusik\u00f4n doxai gab, ist der Bericht bei Diogenes Laertius 9, 7-II. Er zerf\u00e4llt in zwei Teile, eine knappe \u00dcbersicht (im folgenden DL1) und ein ausf\u00fchrliches Referat (im folgenden DL2). Nach DIELS stammt DL1 aus einer Mittelquelle biographischer Tradition, auf die auch der Einschub mit den Zitaten und die Bemerkung \u00fcber Heraklits Stil zur\u00fcckgehe, der zweite Teil dagegen direkt aus Theophrast (Doxographi Graeci I63 f., vgl. auch I80). Dagegen hat K. DEICHGRABER, Bemerkungen zu Diogenes' Bericht fiber Heraklit (Philol. 93, I938, I2ff.) 23ff., zu zeigen versucht, daB es sich nicht um zwei verschiedene Fassungen derselben Vorlage handelt, sondern da\u00df die beiden Teile schon urspruinglich zusammengeh\u00f6ren und aufeinander abgestimmt seien, nur durch den spateren Einschub unterbrochen: der Aufbau entspreche der Gewohnheit Theophrasts, den Einzeldarlegungen eine allgemeine \u00dcbersicht vorauszuschicken. Eine Kl\u00e4rung des Problems wird sich im folgenden ergeben. [introduction, p. 25]","btype":3,"date":"1955","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/46Sh00HA2QdbR2l","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":233,"full_name":"Kerschensteiner, Jula","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1368,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"83","issue":"4","pages":"385-411"}},"sort":["Der Bericht des Theophrast \u00fcber Heraklit"]}

Der Platoniker Ptolemaios, 1957
By: Dihle, Albrecht
Title Der Platoniker Ptolemaios
Type Article
Language German
Date 1957
Journal Hermes
Volume 85
Issue 3
Pages 314-325
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dihle, Albrecht
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In den philosophischen Texten der späten Kaiserzeit stößt man zuweilen auf den Namen Ptolemaios, ohne daß dabei an einen Lagiden oder an den berühmten Astronomen zu denken wäre. Wie jene Zitate auf einen oder mehrere Träger dieses Namens zu verteilen seien, war eine einst viel diskutierte Frage, die dann allerdings im Anschluß an eine Vermutung W. v. Christs durch das Buch von A. Chatzis (Der Philosoph und Grammatiker Ptolemaios Chennos I = Stud. z Gesch. u. Kult. d. Altert. VII 2, Paderborn 1914) endgültig dahin beantwortet schien, es handele sich bei all diesen Ptolemaioi immer wieder um Ptolemaios Chennos aus der Zeit um 100 n. Chr., der uns durch den Auszug des Photios aus seiner καινὴ ἱστορία (cod. 190) recht gut bekannt ist. Diese Frage soll hier einer erneuten Prüfung unterzogen werden. [introduction, p. 314]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1305","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1305,"authors_free":[{"id":1929,"entry_id":1305,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":93,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dihle, Albrecht","free_first_name":"Albrecht","free_last_name":"Dihle","norm_person":{"id":93,"first_name":"Albrecht","last_name":"Dihle","full_name":"Dihle, Albrecht","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119194503","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Platoniker Ptolemaios","main_title":{"title":"Der Platoniker Ptolemaios"},"abstract":"In den philosophischen Texten der sp\u00e4ten Kaiserzeit st\u00f6\u00dft man zuweilen auf den Namen Ptolemaios, ohne da\u00df dabei an einen Lagiden oder an den ber\u00fchmten Astronomen zu denken w\u00e4re. Wie jene Zitate auf einen oder mehrere Tr\u00e4ger dieses Namens zu verteilen seien, war eine einst viel diskutierte Frage, die dann allerdings im Anschlu\u00df an eine Vermutung W. v. Christs durch das Buch von A. Chatzis (Der Philosoph und Grammatiker Ptolemaios Chennos I = Stud. z Gesch. u. Kult. d. Altert. VII 2, Paderborn 1914) endg\u00fcltig dahin beantwortet schien, es handele sich bei all diesen Ptolemaioi immer wieder um Ptolemaios Chennos aus der Zeit um 100 n. Chr., der uns durch den Auszug des Photios aus seiner \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u1f77\u03b1 (cod. 190) recht gut bekannt ist. Diese Frage soll hier einer erneuten Pr\u00fcfung unterzogen werden. [introduction, p. 314]","btype":3,"date":"1957","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vFgmnYtr8RbZ3BD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":93,"full_name":"Dihle, Albrecht","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1305,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"85","issue":"3","pages":"314-325"}},"sort":["Der Platoniker Ptolemaios"]}

Der Satz des Anaximandros von Milet (VS⁵ 12 B 1), 1938
By: Dirlmeier, Franz
Title Der Satz des Anaximandros von Milet (VS⁵ 12 B 1)
Type Article
Language German
Date 1938
Journal Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume 87
Issue 4
Pages 376-382
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dirlmeier, Franz
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Die Weltsicht der Ionier wird zu einer Zeit, als sie schon 
der Geschichte angehörte, neu geformt durch die Wissenschaft- 
ler der aristotelischen Schule, die somit die uranfängliche Scheu 
vor dem Unbestimmten, Unbegrenzten treu bewahren. Aber 
sie dehnen sie auch noch aus auf fast alle Bereiche des Seins. 
Frühionische Bändigung des  Chaos der -feveffeic in irepioboi 
vollzieht sich aufs neue, wenn etwa Aristoteles den ungeord- 
neten, den nur „gereihten46 Ablauf der Menschenrede „unter- 
wirft", mit der Begründung: die XéHiç elpojiévTi sei ein àr'bkç olà 
tò ÔTreipov tò fàp TéXoç iravreç ßouXovrai K0t6opâv (Rhet. y 9, 
1409 a31). Wenn wir zu den Erkenntnissen der schöpferischen 
Jahrhunderte VI bis III  die sorgsame Auseinandersetzung des 
Simplikios nehmen, der am Ausgang der Antike mit fester Hand 
das  gültig Gedachte noch einmal zusammenfaßt, so  haben 
wir  damit ein  Jahrtausend hellenischen Geistes überblickt. [p. 382]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"757","_score":null,"_source":{"id":757,"authors_free":[{"id":1122,"entry_id":757,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":63,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dirlmeier, Franz ","free_first_name":"Franz","free_last_name":"Dirlmeier","norm_person":{"id":63,"first_name":"Franz ","last_name":"Dirlmeier","full_name":"Dirlmeier, Franz ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140255591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Satz des Anaximandros von Milet (VS\u2075 12 B 1)","main_title":{"title":"Der Satz des Anaximandros von Milet (VS\u2075 12 B 1)"},"abstract":"Die Weltsicht der Ionier wird zu einer Zeit, als sie schon \r\nder Geschichte angeh\u00f6rte, neu geformt durch die Wissenschaft- \r\nler der aristotelischen Schule, die somit die uranf\u00e4ngliche Scheu \r\nvor dem Unbestimmten, Unbegrenzten treu bewahren. Aber \r\nsie dehnen sie auch noch aus auf fast alle Bereiche des Seins. \r\nFr\u00fchionische B\u00e4ndigung des Chaos der -feveffeic in irepioboi \r\nvollzieht sich aufs neue, wenn etwa Aristoteles den ungeord- \r\nneten, den nur \u201egereihten46 Ablauf der Menschenrede \u201eunter- \r\nwirft\", mit der Begr\u00fcndung: die X\u00e9Hi\u00e7 elpoji\u00e9vTi sei ein \u00e0r'bk\u00e7 ol\u00e0 \r\nt\u00f2 \u00d4Treipov t\u00f2 f\u00e0p T\u00e9Xo\u00e7 iravre\u00e7 \u00dfouXovrai K0t6op\u00e2v (Rhet. y 9, \r\n1409 a31). Wenn wir zu den Erkenntnissen der sch\u00f6pferischen \r\nJahrhunderte VI bis III die sorgsame Auseinandersetzung des \r\nSimplikios nehmen, der am Ausgang der Antike mit fester Hand \r\ndas g\u00fcltig Gedachte noch einmal zusammenfa\u00dft, so haben \r\nwir damit ein Jahrtausend hellenischen Geistes \u00fcberblickt. [p. 382]","btype":3,"date":"1938","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GvW8g50PoxkFsCo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":63,"full_name":"Dirlmeier, Franz ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":757,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"87","issue":"4","pages":"376-382"}},"sort":["Der Satz des Anaximandros von Milet (VS\u2075 12 B 1)"]}

Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 2003
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit
Type Article
Language German
Date 2003
Journal Rhein. Museum
Volume 146
Issue 1
Pages 49–71
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts während der römischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich führten enge Beziehungen führender Römer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubertät, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der körperliche Verfall der freien Betätigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1334","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1334,"authors_free":[{"id":1967,"entry_id":1334,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit","main_title":{"title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"},"abstract":"Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts w\u00e4hrend der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich f\u00fchrten enge Beziehungen f\u00fchrender R\u00f6mer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubert\u00e4t, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der k\u00f6rperliche Verfall der freien Bet\u00e4tigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RLCCEw58cd74kRF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1334,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rhein. Museum","volume":"146","issue":"1","pages":"49\u201371"}},"sort":["Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"]}

Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?, 1974
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1974
Journal Hermes
Volume 102
Issue 4
Pages 540–556
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Bearing  in  mind  the  reservations  already  made,  what  conclusions  can  we draw?  In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken  overall,  suggest  that  Iamblichus did not  write a commentary on  the de Anima. Consideration of  Stephanus'  commentary on de Anima G points in the same  direction,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  that  commentary  contains 
a reference to  Iamblichus'  that  looks  more like  a  quotation from  a de  Anima commentary  than  any  other  that  we  have.  Philoponus  is  less  helpful,  as  are other  members  of  the  Alexandrian  school.  He  certainly  gives  no  positive indication  that  Iamblichus  wrote  a  commentary,  but  for  the  reasons  that  we have given,  the lack  of  such positive  evidence  in  his case does not  amount  to 
anything  like  conclusive  negative  evidence.  We  cannot  entirely  rule  out  the possibility  that  Iamblichus  did  write  a  commentary,  either  on  the  de  Anima as  a whole,  or on some extended part  of  it,  but it seems probably that he  did 
not.  If  he  did  it  would  certainly  be  fair  to  say  that  his  commentary  was probably  of  no  great  importance.  Discussions  of  isolated  texts  of  Aristotle are  another  matter:  they  are  only  to  be  expected  in  the  work  of  any  Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"569","_score":null,"_source":{"id":569,"authors_free":[{"id":808,"entry_id":569,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?","main_title":{"title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"},"abstract":"Bearing in mind the reservations already made, what conclusions can we draw? In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken overall, suggest that Iamblichus did not write a commentary on the de Anima. Consideration of Stephanus' commentary on de Anima G points in the same direction, but it must not be forgotten that that commentary contains \r\na reference to Iamblichus' that looks more like a quotation from a de Anima commentary than any other that we have. Philoponus is less helpful, as are other members of the Alexandrian school. He certainly gives no positive indication that Iamblichus wrote a commentary, but for the reasons that we have given, the lack of such positive evidence in his case does not amount to \r\nanything like conclusive negative evidence. We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Iamblichus did write a commentary, either on the de Anima as a whole, or on some extended part of it, but it seems probably that he did \r\nnot. If he did it would certainly be fair to say that his commentary was probably of no great importance. Discussions of isolated texts of Aristotle are another matter: they are only to be expected in the work of any Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lVHeUz4fhZTWu9Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":569,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"102","issue":"4","pages":"540\u2013556"}},"sort":["Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"]}

Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?, 1958
By: Booth, N. B.
Title Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1958
Journal The American Journal of Philology
Volume 79
Issue 1
Pages 61-65
Categories no categories
Author(s) Booth, N. B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
G.  Vlastos,  in  Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp.  34-5,  claims  that 
he  (and  J.  E.  Raven before him)  have laid  to  rest  "the  alleged 
corporeality  of Melissean  Being in the grave  which  contains 
Burnet's  famous  dogma  of  Eleatic  materialism." There  is a 
surprising  finality  about this  claim  of  Vlastos',  and  it  behooves 
his  critics to  consider whether such finality  is  justified. I  think 
myself  that,  while  Vlastos'  arguments are  forceful  and  well  ex- 
pressed, they  still  fail  to  carry absolute conviction;  and  in  this 
brief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons  for my 
scepticism. [p. 61]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"769","_score":null,"_source":{"id":769,"authors_free":[{"id":1133,"entry_id":769,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":10,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Booth, N. B.","free_first_name":"N. B.","free_last_name":"Booth","norm_person":{"id":10,"first_name":"N. B.","last_name":"Booth","full_name":"Booth, N. B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?","main_title":{"title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?"},"abstract":"G. Vlastos, in Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp. 34-5, claims that \r\nhe (and J. E. Raven before him) have laid to rest \"the alleged \r\ncorporeality of Melissean Being in the grave which contains \r\nBurnet's famous dogma of Eleatic materialism.\" There is a \r\nsurprising finality about this claim of Vlastos', and it behooves \r\nhis critics to consider whether such finality is justified. I think \r\nmyself that, while Vlastos' arguments are forceful and well ex- \r\npressed, they still fail to carry absolute conviction; and in this \r\nbrief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons for my \r\nscepticism. [p. 61]","btype":3,"date":"1958","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0OSvPVeLSMxRqoo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":10,"full_name":"Booth, N. B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":769,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"79","issue":"1","pages":"61-65"}},"sort":["Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?"]}

Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?, 2001
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de
Title Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?
Type Article
Language English
Date 2001
Journal Phronesis
Volume 46
Issue 4
Pages 492-526
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"762","_score":null,"_source":{"id":762,"authors_free":[{"id":1127,"entry_id":762,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":762,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"492-526"}},"sort":["Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"]}

  • PAGE 7 OF 34