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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AiYh4J18MnRsxtC |
{"_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]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NUEoM1d6g4gWxsi |
{"_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]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/b3rxLEWeKXAayJM |
{"_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]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tcjT26g8SMZmJ0w |
{"_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]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fGML586kM8C7Ufy |
{"_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]}
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. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XyN4FMax5gOu9BV |
{"_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]}
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). |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/J4r7agyESQzvlQk |
{"_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]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9To60zNZe4T1kFt |
{"_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]}
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 |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kyq7dKtLUkqGVRs |
{"_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]}
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 |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cHUSTdkDuHSltbC |
{"_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]}
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) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MW9qX9M0yhPEIoF |
{"_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)"]}
Title | Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathématiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen? |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1997 |
Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
Volume | 1 |
Pages | 42–107 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Th e historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country’s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu’s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna’s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu’s hypothesis. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/02SsgCQOWvog4KZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"698","_score":null,"_source":{"id":698,"authors_free":[{"id":1038,"entry_id":698,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?","main_title":{"title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"},"abstract":"Th e historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country\u2019s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu\u2019s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna\u2019s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu\u2019s hypothesis. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/02SsgCQOWvog4KZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":698,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"42\u2013107"}},"sort":["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?"]}
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) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PeqRfz0UCy8HKWU |
{"_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"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/46Sh00HA2QdbR2l |
{"_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"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vFgmnYtr8RbZ3BD |
{"_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"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GvW8g50PoxkFsCo |
{"_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)"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RLCCEw58cd74kRF |
{"_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"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lVHeUz4fhZTWu9Y |
{"_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?"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0OSvPVeLSMxRqoo |
{"_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?"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq |
{"_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\"?"]}